ArticleInfection and drug resistance2024
Enhancing the Accuracy of Peripheral Pulmonary Tuberculosis Diagnosis: A Comparative Evaluation of CapitalBio
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating Tuberculosis Screening Tools: A Decade-Long Network Meta-Analysis of Sensitivity and Specificity with Bibliometric Insights.Journal of global infectious diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The diagnosis of tuberculosis located in the peripheral zone remains challenging and requires ultrasound bronchoscopy-guided maneuvers. We assessed the precision of CapitalBio Patients and Methods: This retrospective analysis included 287 patients suspected of peripheral pulmonary tuberculosis who underwent EBUS-GS examinations, medical examination results of AFB smears, MTB culture, CapitalBio MTB test, and MTB-RNA were analyzed. We evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and its diagnostic accuracy for peripheral PTB was evaluated in comparison with the final clinical diagnosis. Results: The overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC of CapitalBio MTB test were 44.83%, 100.00%, 100.00%, 54.07%, and 0.72, respectively; those of MTB-RNA were 22.99%, 100.00%, 100.00%, 45.75%, and 0.61, respectively, and those for parallel test (CapitalBio MTB test or MTB-RNA) were 46.55%, 100.00%, 100.00%, 54.85%, and 0.73, respectively. These values for AFB smear were 9.2%, 97.35%, 84.21%, 41.04%, and 0.53, respectively, and those of MTB culture were 31.03%, 100.00%, 100.00%, 48.50%, and 0.69, respectively. Conclusion: The CapitalBio MTB test showed the best diagnostic performance compared with AFB smear, MTB culture, and MTB-RNA assays and was similar to the parallel test (CapitalBio MTB test or MTB-RNA). The CapitalBio MTB test combined with EBUS-GS had satisfactory diagnostic accuracy for diagnosing peripheral PTB.
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.