ArticleCureus2023
Bacillary Positive Tuberculous Body Fluid Smears: A Perspective on How Fast to Use Acid Fast.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Tuberculous effusions are common. Classically, they are described as bacteria poor and lymphocyte rich. Our experience, however, has been more varied. We compiled this rare group of bacteria-positive tuberculous fluids to document their cytologic spectrum and to look for possible predictors of bacillary positivity. Methods Fifty-one cases of bacillary positive fluids were identified and their clinicopathological details were noted. Per case, the smear background was assigned as either clear, caseous, suppurative, granular proteinaceous or frankly hemorrhagic. Fine, punched-out vacuoles in the smear background were also noted. The bacillary load in each case was classified from scanty to 3+. Eventually, the clinicopathologic variables were tabulated for frequency and studied for any association with bacillary presence. Results Only 19 of the 51 patients had a history of tuberculosis. Retropositive patients comprised a small proportion (9.8%) and did not always indicate strong (3+) bacillary positivity. The granular proteinaceous background was the most frequent (35%) pattern. Only a suppurative background was associated with strong bacillary positivity. Fine vacuoles were seen almost always with caseous and granular proteinaceous backgrounds but without statistical significance. Conclusion Tuberculous effusions can have diverse smear backgrounds, not necessarily one rich in caseous material. When tuberculosis is known or clinically suspected, non-classical findings such as abundant neutrophils or suppurative background should not dissuade one from requisitioning mycobacterial stains. In fact, acid-fast stains should probably routinely accompany Giemsa slides of clinically idiopathic effusions in endemic areas since it is still the cheapest and fastest method for a conclusive 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.