ArticleEClinicalMedicine2022
Evaluation of a transcriptomic signature of tuberculosis risk in combination with an interferon gamma release assay: A diagnostic test accuracy study.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immunopathological signatures in congenital tuberculosis-a case-matched study.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of RISK6 assay in childhood pulmonary TB.IJTLD open · 2025Article
- Transcriptomic Signatures of Progression to Tuberculosis Disease Among Close Contacts in Brazil.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Increased serum interferon activity in sarcoidosis compared to that in tuberculosis: Implication for diagnosis?Heliyon · 2024Article
- Predicting Pediatric Tuberculosis: The Need for Age-Specific Host Biosignatures.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023Article
- Challenges and the Way forward in Diagnosis and Treatment of Tuberculosis Infection.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: We evaluated the diagnostic and prognostic performance of a transcriptomic signature of tuberculosis (TB) risk (RISK11) and QuantiFERON-TB Gold-plus (QFTPlus) as combination biomarkers of TB risk. Methods: Healthy South Africans who were HIV-negative aged 18-60 years with baseline RISK11 and QFTPlus results were evaluated in a prospective cohort study conducted between Sept 20, 2016 and Dec 20, 2019. Prevalence and incidence-rate ratios were used to evaluate risk of TB. Positive (LR+) and negative (LR-) likelihood ratios were used to compare individual tests versus Both-Positive (RISK11+/QFTPlus+) and Either-Positive (RISK11+ or QFTPlus+) combinations. Findings: Among 2912 participants, prevalent TB in RISK11+/QFTPlus+ participants was 13·3-fold (95% CI 4·2-42·7) higher than RISK11-/QFTPlus-; 2·4-fold (95% CI 1·2-4·8) higher than RISK11+/QFTPlus-; and 4·5-fold (95% CI 2·5-8·0) higher than RISK11-/QFTPlus+ participants. Risk of incident TB in RISK11+/QFTPlus+ participants was 8·3-fold (95% CI 2·5-27·0) higher than RISK11-/QFTPlus-; 2·5-fold (95% CI 1·0-6·6) higher than RISK11+/QFTPlus-; and 2·1-fold (95% CI 1·2-3·4) higher than RISK11-/QFTPlus+ participants, respectively. Compared to QFTPlus, the Both-Positive test combination increased diagnostic LR+ from 1·3 (95% CI 1·2-1·5) to 4·7 (95% CI 3·2-7·0), and prognostic LR+ from 1·4 (95% CI 1·2-1·5) to 2·8 (95% CI 1·5-5·1), but did not improve upon RISK11 alone. Compared with RISK11, the Either-Positive test combination decreased diagnostic LR- from 0·7 (95% CI 0·6-0·9) to 0·3 (95% CI 0·2-0·6), and prognostic LR- from 0·9 (95% CI 0·8-1·0) to 0·3 (0·1-0·7), but did not improve upon QFTPlus alone. Interpretation: Combining two tests such as RISK11 and QFTPlus, with discordant individual performance characteristics does not improve overall discriminatory performance, relative to the individual tests. Funding: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, South African Medical Research Council.
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.