ArticleCureus2024
Evaluation of Diagnostic Performance of Line Probe Assay on Smear-Negative Samples of Pulmonary Tuberculosis.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tuberculosis Diagnostic Methods: Clinical Applicability, Implementation Challenges, and Integrated Testing Strategies.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Advancing the fight against tuberculosis: integrating innovation and public health in diagnosis, treatment, vaccine development, and implementation science.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to compare the performance of line probe assay (LPA) on smear-negative samples with that of smear-positive samples for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) and first-line drug sensitivity testing (FL DST).
methodsA total of 196 sputum samples including both smear-positive (112) and negative (84) samples of patients suspected of PTB were subjected to LPA for TB detection and FL DST. TB culture followed by MPT 64 Ag was done and conventional FL DST was performed on all culture-positive isolates. Results of LPA on smear-negative were compared with smear-positive samples.
resultsThe LPA confirmed the diagnosis of PTB in 104/112 smear-positive cases but in only 36/84 smear-negative cases. The assay had 47.36%, 72.72%, and 88.88% sensitivity and 86.96%, 95.23%, and 95.65% specificity in smear-negative cases compared to 89.09%, 95.83%, and 98.07% sensitivity and 100%, 98.36%, and 98.24% specificity in smear-positive cases for detecting
conclusionLPA performance was better on smear-positive than smear-negative sputum samples. Further larger studies are needed to justify the use of LPA on smear-negative pulmonary samples for 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.