ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2022
Comparison of the Accuracy of Two Different Molecular Tests for the Diagnosis of Tuberculous Lymphadenitis Using Core Needle Biopsy Specimens: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The diagnostic accuracy of nanopore sequencing in Tuberculous Lymphadenitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
- Enhancing the Accuracy of Peripheral Pulmonary Tuberculosis Diagnosis: A Comparative Evaluation of CapitalBioInfection and drug resistance · 2024Article
- Application ofInfection and drug resistance · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the CapitalBio Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical data on patients with suspected peripheral TBL. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC) of the CapitalBio test, Xpert MTB/RIF, and parallel test (positive result for either of these two tests) were calculated to evaluate their diagnostic efficacy compared with the final clinical diagnosis. Results: The study included 114 patients. For diagnosing TBL using CNB samples, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC were 65.0%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 28.6%, and 0.83, respectively, for the CapitalBio test; 72.0%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 33.3%, and 0.86, respectively, for Xpert MTB/RIF; and 82.0%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 43.8%, and 0.91, respectively, for the parallel test. Conclusion: The accuracy of the CapitalBio test and Xpert MTB/RIF for diagnosing TBL using CNB specimens was moderate, while the sensitivity and NPV of these two tests were relatively low. The diagnostic accuracy of the CapitalBio test was slightly lower than that of Xpert MTB/RIF, but the difference between the two was not statistically significant. Parallel test might improve the diagnostic accuracy but not substantially over a single test.
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.