SynthesisScientific reports2024
Evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of QIAreach QuantiFERON-TB compared to QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus for tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in electrochemical immunosensors for tuberculosis detection: a systematic review.Biotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Review
- 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
- Article
- Article
- Usability and acceptability of a novel TB infection diagnostic test among key populations in Mexicali.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis remains challenging, especially in resource-limited settings. This study aims to assess the diagnostic performance of the QIAreach QuantiFERON-TB (QFT) assay, with a specific focus on comparing its diagnostic performance with the QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus). We systematically reviewed relevant individual studies on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to January 20, 2024. The focus was on evaluating the diagnostic parameters of the QIAreach QFT assay for TB infection, which included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and concordance with the QFT-Plus assay. QIAreach QFT demonstrated strong diagnostic performance with a pooled sensitivity of 99% (95% CI 95-100%) and specificity of 94% (95% CI 85-97%). Additionally, it showed a PLR of 15.6 (95% CI 6.5-37.5) and NLR of 0.01 (95% CI 0-0.03). The pooled PPV and NPV were 88% (95% CI 70-98%) and 100% (95% CI 99-100%), respectively. Concordance analysis with QFT-Plus revealed a pooled positive percent agreement of 98% (95% CI 88-100%) and pooled negative percent agreement of 91% (95% CI 81-97%), with a pooled overall percent agreement of 92% (95% CI 83-98). In conclusion, QIAreach QFT has shown promising diagnostic performance, with a strong concordance with QFT-Plus. However, further studies are needed to comprehensively evaluate its diagnostic performance in the context of TB infection.
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.