ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
A comparative study of ultrasound-guided puncture biopsy combined with histopathology and Xpert MTB/RIF in the diagnosis of lymph node tuberculosis.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasound-Guided Needle Aspiration Biopsy for Superficial Cervical Lymphadenopathy: Diagnostic Yield Beyond Tuberculosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Preliminary assessment of the use of targeted next-generation sequencing technology for detecting lymph node tuberculosis using ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy specimens.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Improved detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in lymph node aspirates through GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay in Bangladesh.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- The diagnostic accuracy of nanopore sequencing in Tuberculous Lymphadenitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Combined clinical significance of MRI and serum mannose-binding lectin in the prediction of spinal tuberculosis.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Comments and Illustrations of Ultrasound Findings in Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis Manifestations.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Nanopore-based targeted next-generation sequencing of tissue samples for tuberculosis diagnosis.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cervical tuberculous lymphadenitis (CTBL) is a disease often ignored in clinical work, and pathology and Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) are the commonly used methods for tuberculosis diagnosis. This study aimed to compare ultrasound-guided puncture biopsy combined with histopathology and Xpert in the diagnosis of lymph node tuberculosis. Methods: A total of 217 patients highly suspected for CTBL were retrospectively enrolled. All patients underwent ultrasound-guided puncture sampling. All samples were subjected to pathological examination and Xpert test. The sensitivity and specificity of the two methods were compared for all samples. The kappa value was calculated to assess the consistency of the pathological examination and Xpert test using comprehensive diagnosis as the gold standard. Receiver operating characteristic curves of the pathological examination, Xpert test, and their combination were generated, and the areas under the curve (AUCs) were calculated to compare the diagnostic value of the three methods. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of the pathological diagnosis of CTBL were 70.1 and 100%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of Xpert for CTBL diagnosis were 82.5 and 97.5%, respectively. The results of the pathological examination and Xpert test showed poor consistency in the diagnosis of CTBL, with a kappa value of 0.388. The AUC of the pathological diagnosis of CTBL was 0.850 (95% CI: 0.796-0.895), whereas that of Xpert was 0.900 (95% CI: 0.852-0.936), and the difference was statistically significant ( Conclusion: The diagnostic efficiency of Xpert test is higher than that of pathological examination, but its sensitivity is still not ideal for clinical diagnosis. According to this study, the consistency of Xpert test and pathological diagnosis is poor, and the combination of Xpert test and pathological diagnosis can significantly increase the diagnostic efficiency.
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.