ArticleInfection and drug resistance2022
The Role of Core Needle Biopsy Pathology Combined with Molecular Tests in the Diagnosis of Lymph Node Tuberculosis.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasound-Guided Needle Aspiration Biopsy for Superficial Cervical Lymphadenopathy: Diagnostic Yield Beyond Tuberculosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Preliminary assessment of the use of targeted next-generation sequencing technology for detecting lymph node tuberculosis using ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy specimens.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- The diagnostic accuracy of nanopore sequencing in Tuberculous Lymphadenitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
- Targeted nanopore sequencing using clinical specimens for the rapid diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Nanopore Sequencing for Diagnosing Pulmonary Tuberculosis Using Negative Smear Clinical Specimens.Infection and drug resistance · 2024Article
- The value of nanopore sequencing as a diagnostic tool in tuberculous meningitis: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Article
- Can Ultrasound Evaluation of Lymph Node Size and Necrosis Rate Predict Chemotherapy Response in Cervical Tuberculous Lymphadenitis?Infection and drug resistance · 2024Article
- Accuracy of Nanopore Sequencing as a Diagnostic Assay for Pulmonary Tuberculosis versus Smear, Culture and Xpert MTB/RIF: A Head-to-Head Comparison.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis by ultrasound-guided biopsy: A retrospective comparison study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Article
- Application ofInfection and drug resistance · 2023Article
- Comparison of the Accuracy of Two Different Molecular Tests for the Diagnosis of Tuberculous Lymphadenitis Using Core Needle Biopsy Specimens: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.International journal of general medicine · 2022Article
- ComparingInfection and drug resistance · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly lymph node tuberculosis (LNTB) diagnosis is still difficult. The majority of LN specimens require the undertaking of invasive and unpleasant procedures. PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of pathology when combined with molecular tests for the diagnosis of LNTB in core needle biopsy (CNB) specimens and to compare that diagnostic efficacy with that deriving from tissue specimens' examination alone.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the medical records of LNTB patients who met the inclusion criteria. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC) of pathology, molecular tests, and parallel test (positive result for either of these two assays) were calculated to evaluate their diagnostic efficacy compared with a composite reference standard.
resultsA total of 289 patients were included in the study. The overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC of pathology, molecular tests, and parallel test were 94.5%, 97.2%, 99.6%, 71.4%, 0.96; 73.1%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 34.6%, 0.87; and 98.4%, 97.2%, 99.6%, 89.7%, 0.98, respectively. For CNB specimens, these values for pathology, molecular tests, and parallel test were 93.3%, 96.2%, 99.4%, 69.4%, 0.95; 76.4%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 40.0%, 0.88; and 99.4%, 96.2%, 99.4%,96.2%,0.98, while those same values for the tissue were 96.6%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 76.9%, 0.98; 67.1%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 25.6%, 0.84; and 96.6%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 76.9%,0.98, respectively.
conclusionThe validity of pathology and molecular testing when using CNB specimens was similar to that of tissue specimens for relevant assessment approaches. For the LNTB diagnosis, CNB specimens were preferred for the simultaneous undertaking of pathological examination and molecular testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.