ArticleScientific reports2023
Comparative performance evaluation of QIAreach QuantiFERON-TB and tuberculin skin test for diagnosis of tuberculosis infection in Viet Nam.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of QIAreach QuantiFERON-TB compared to QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus for tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of the STANDARD F TB-Feron FIA Assay for Tuberculosis Infection in Vietnam: A Cross-Sectional Study.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026Article
- Low concordance between QIAreach QuantiFERON-TB, a novel interferon-gamma release assay, and QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus, in a population-based survey in Blantyre, Malawi.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Usability and acceptability of a novel TB infection diagnostic test among key populations in Mexicali.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Diagnostic Performance of Three Commercial Interferon-Gamma Release Assays forDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current WHO-recommended diagnostic tools for tuberculosis infection (TBI) have well-known limitations and viable alternatives are urgently needed. We compared the diagnostic performance and accuracy of the novel QIAreach QuantiFERON-TB assay (QIAreach; index) to the QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus assay (QFT-Plus; reference). The sample included 261 adults (≥ 18 years) recruited at community-based TB case finding events. Of these, 226 underwent Tuberculin Skin Tests and 200 returned for interpretation (TST; comparator). QIAreach processing and TST reading were completed at lower-level healthcare facilities. We conducted matched-pair comparisons for QIAreach and TST with QFT-Plus, calculated sensitivity, specificity and area under a receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC), and analyzed concordant-/discordant-pair interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) levels. QIAreach sensitivity and specificity were 98.5% and 72.3%, respectively, for an AUC of 0.85. TST sensitivity (53.2%) at a 5 mm induration threshold was significantly below QIAreach, while specificity (82.4%) was statistically equivalent. The corrected mean IFN-γ level of 0.08 IU/ml and corresponding empirical threshold (0.05) of false-positive QIAreach results were significantly lower than the manufacturer-recommended QFT-Plus threshold (≥ 0.35 IU/ml). Despite QIAreach's higher sensitivity at equivalent specificity to TST, the high number of false positive results and low specificity limit its utility and highlight the continued need to expand the diagnostic toolkit for TBI.
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.