Trial reportBMC infectious diseases2022
Safety of a Novel ESAT6-CFP10 skin test compared with tuberculin skin test in a double-blind, randomized, controlled study.
Trial report in BMC infectious diseases, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of ESAT6-CFP10 skin test compared with tuberculin skin test in a healthy population: a randomized, blind, parallel controlled phase III clinical study.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Trial
- Diagnostic accuracy of the ESAT6-CFP10 skin test for latent tuberculosis infection among jail detainees.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- From immunology to artificial intelligence: revolutionizing latent tuberculosis infection diagnosis with machine learning.Military Medical Research · 2023Review
- A Systematic Review on the Safety ofOpen forum infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Understanding the bacillary load and host interaction to design a point-of-care test to diagnose tuberculosis.Frontiers in tuberculosis · 2023Article
- How useful is the tuberculin skin test for tuberculosis detection: Assessing diagnostic accuracy metrics through a large Tunisian case-control study.F1000Research · 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
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundESAT6-CFP10 (EC) skin test has been reported accurate and safe in identifying tuberculosis infection. We aimed to demonstrate the safety of EC skin test compared with tuberculin skin test (TST) in university freshmen.
methodsWe conducted a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical study in a university freshmen population with 16,680 participates in China, and finally 14,579 completed the study. About a half received an EC skin test and the others received TST. Adverse reactions were evaluated.
resultsOut of the 14,579 participants, 48.2% (7029/14,579) were males. The average age was 18.1 ± 0.8 years and the average BMI was 20.9 ± 3.1 kg/m
conclusionthe EC skin test was safe in our cohort. And its incidence of total adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is less than that of TST. Most adverse reactions were mild or moderate, lasting less than 48 h and self-limiting. Considering the satisfactory diagnostic accuracy in identifying tuberculosis infection, the cost and safety, the EC skin test might be a potential candidate for replacing TST in high burden countries or those with routine BCG vaccination. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2000038622, Safety of the EC skin test to screen tuberculosis infection in two universities, compared with the tuberculin skin test: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. registered on 26/09/2020 at http://www.chictr.org.cn .
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.