Observational studyAnnals of medicine2023
Clinical utilization of multiple antibodies of
Observational study in Annals of medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- MPT64 antigen-induced immune responses as a novel diagnostic tool for tuberculosis.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Epidemiologic and clinical characteristics ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to investigate clinical uncertainties by characterizing the accuracy and utility of commercially available antibodies of
methodsWe conducted a retrospective, descriptive, cohort study among participants aged ≥ 18 years with suspected tuberculosis in Nanning, Guangxi, and China. Participants were tested for
resultsOf the 1857 participants enrolled in this study, 1772 were included in the analyses, among which, 1311 were diagnosed with active tuberculosis. The specificity of antibody against 16kD for active tuberculosis was 92.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 89.3-95.4) with a positive likelihood ratio for active tuberculosis cases of 3.1 (95% CI: 2.1-4.7), which was higher than that of antibody to Rv1636 (90.5% [95% CI: 86.6-93.5]), antibody to 38kD (89.5% [95% CI: 85.5-92.7]), antibody against CFP-10 (82.6% [95% CI: 77.9-86.7]), and antibody against LAM (79.3% [95% CI: 74.3-83.7]). Sensitivity ranged from 15.8% (95% CI: 13.9-17.9) for antibody against Rv1636 to 32.9% (95% CI: 30.4-35.6) for antibody to LAM.
conclusionsCommercially available antibodies against to
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.