ArticleBMC public health2025
Comparative evaluation of QuantiFERON-TB gold in-tube plus for Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection among adolescents in China.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. 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.
- Dynamic, quantitative ESAT6-CFP10 skin test for tuberculosis risk prediction: a large-scale, multi-center, prospective cohort study.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Article
- The Impact of Body Mass Index on Latent Tuberculosis Infection: Combined Assessment in People Living with HIV.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundNo head-to-head studies have simultaneously compared the performances of QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT), QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus), ESAT6-CFP10 (EC) skin test, and Tuberculin skin test (TST) in adolescents. This study aimed to conduct a comparative assessment of QFT-GIT and QFT-Plus for detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis(Mtb) infection in high school freshmen.
methodsWe concurrently administered QFT-GIT, QFT-Plus, EC skin test, and TST to first-year high school students. Blood samples were obtained for the QFT-GIT and QFT-Plus assays before the administration of the EC skin test and TST. The diagnostic values were compared. Discrepancies between the tests were quantified using Cohen's kappa coefficient.
resultsA total of 787 freshmen were recruited in this study. Among 787 subjects, EC was positive in 0.8%, TST in 5.3%, QFT-GIT in 1.1%, and QFT-Plus in 3.2%. Overall agreements for QFT-GIT vs. QFT-Plus, QFT-Plus TB1, and QFT-Plus TB2 were 95.7% (95% CI, 94.0-97.0), 97.3% (95% CI, 95.9-98.3), and 95.9% (95% CI, 94.3-97.2), respectively. Cohen's kappa values were 0.485 (95% CI, 0.319-0.621), 0.593 (95% CI, 0.413-0.744), and 0.451 (95% CI, 0.274-0.600). Consistency rates for QFT-GIT, QFT-Plus, EC skin test, and TST were 96.6% (95% CI, 95.0, 97.0), 92.1% (95% CI, 89.0, 94.0), 94.5% (95% CI, 92.6, 96.1), and 91.2% (95% CI, 88.8, 93.1) with Cohen's kappa values of 0.19 (95% CI, -0.01, 0.38), 0.07 (95% CI, -0.02, 0.19), 0.08 (95% CI, -0.01, 0.23), and 0.12 (95% CI, 0.01, 0.21).
conclusionThe QFT-GIT and QFT-Plus assays exhibited a high level of agreement but demonstrated a moderate correlation. IFN-γ levels measured by both QFT-GIT and QFT-Plus were comparable. Notably, Our study suggests QFT-Plus may detect a higher rate of Mtb infection among high school freshmen compared to QFT-GIT, EC skin test, and TST, though this requires cautious interpretation due to the absence of a gold standard for Mtb infection 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.