ArticleRheumatology international2022
Tuberculin skin test before biologic and targeted therapies: does the same rule apply for all?
Article in Rheumatology international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors at 15 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare Tuberculin Skin Test (TST) and QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT) test in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (SpA) patients scheduled for biological and targeted synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in a Bacillus Calmette-Guérin-vaccinated population. Adult RA (n = 206) and SpA (n = 392) patients from the TReasure database who had both TST and QFT-GIT prior to initiation of biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs were included in the study. Demographic and disease characteristics along with pre-biologic DMARD and steroid use were recorded. The distribution of TST and performance with respect to QFT-GIT were compared between RA and SpA groups. Pre-biologic conventional DMARD and steroid use was higher in the RA group. TST positivity rates were 44.2% in RA and 69.1% in SpA for a 5 mm cutoff (p < 0.001). Only 8.9% and 15% of the patients with RA and SpA, respectively, tested positive by QFT-GIT. The two tests poorly agreed in both groups at a TST cutoff of 5 mm and increasing the TST cutoff only slightly increased the agreement. Among age, sex, education and smoking status, pre-biologic steroid and conventional DMARD use, disease group, and QFT-GIT positivity, which were associated with a 5 mm or higher TST, only disease group (SpA) and QFT-GIT positivity remained significant in multiple logistic regression. TST positivity was more pronounced in SpA compared to that in RA and this was not explainable by pre-biologic DMARD and steroid use. The agreement of TST with QFT-GIT was poor in both groups. Using a 5 mm TST cutoff for both diseases could result in overestimating LTBI in SpA.
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.