ArticleInfection and drug resistance2023
Application of
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2023. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of Xpert MTB/RIF in lymph node tuberculosis in a general hospital.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- The diagnostic accuracy of nanopore sequencing in Tuberculous Lymphadenitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
- Relationship among ultrasound features, pus Mycobacterium tuberculosis load, and efficacy of antituberculosis drugs in patients with necrotizing tuberculous lymphadenitis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Targeted nanopore sequencing using clinical specimens for the rapid diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- The value of nanopore sequencing as a diagnostic tool in tuberculous meningitis: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Article
- Clinical Application of theInfection 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of Methods: We included patients with suspected LNTB who met the inclusion criteria and retrospectively analyzed their clinical data. The sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value (PPV), negative-predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC) of MTB-RNA and culture were calculated and its diagnostic accuracy for LNTB was evaluated in comparison with the final clinical diagnosis. Results: Overall, 285 patients were included in the study. The overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC of MTB-RNA were 40.6%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 17.0%, and 0.70, respectively. These values were 30.8%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 16.0%, and 0.65, respectively, for tissue specimens; 34.2%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 24.6%, and 0.67, respectively, for puncture specimens; and 57.14%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 5.3%, and 0.79, respectively, for pus specimens. These values of culture were 24.4%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 13.9%, and 0.62, respectively, for all specimens; 17.6%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 13.8%, and 0.59, respectively, for tissue specimens; 25.3%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 22.4%, and 0.63, respectively, for puncture specimens; and 31.0%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 3.3%, and 0.65, respectively, for pus specimens. Conclusion: The diagnostic efficacy of MTB-RNA for the rapid diagnosis of LNTB was moderate, but its sensitivity was low. The lymph node pus specimens were the most sensitive for MTB-RNA testing, followed by puncture specimens; tissues were the least sensitive. Pus specimens should be preferably obtained in case only this test is to be used for diagnosis.
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.