ArticleBMJ open2023
Diagnostic accuracy of cryptococcal antigen test in pulmonary cryptococcosis: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Diagnostic Challenge of a False-Positive Cryptococcal Antigen in Chronic Meningitis with Suspected Indolent CNS B-Cell Lymphoproliferative Neoplasm.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Invasive pulmonary cryptococcosis mimicking metastatic lung cancer: A case report and review of literature.World journal of clinical cases · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Approach to Pneumonia in Immunocompromised Hosts.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Clinicopathological Analysis of 60 Cases of Pulmonary Cryptococcosis.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of cryptococcal antigen testing using a novel chemiluminescence assay in two medical centers of China.Frontiers in cellular and infection 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) test was proposed as a rapid diagnostic tool to identify cryptococcal meningitis in patients suffering from AIDS. Several studies have demonstrated its diagnostic performance in cryptococcal meningitis. However, the diagnostic performance of the CrAg test in serum or bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in patients with pulmonary cryptococcosis remains uncertain. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review is to summarise the evidence concerning diagnostic performance of the CrAg test in patients with pulmonary cryptococcosis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Wanfang Database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure will be searched systematically. The titles and abstracts will be reviewed by two independent reviewers. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool will be used to evaluate the risk of bias and clinical applicability of each study. Potential sources of heterogeneity will be investigated through visual inspection of the paired forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic plots. The pooled summary statistics for the area under the curve, sensitivities, specificities, likelihood ratios and diagnostic ORs with 95% CI will be reported. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The underlying study is based on published articles thus does not require ethical approval. The findings of the systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated in various scientific conferences and seminars. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022373321.
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.