ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
Pathological subtypes and sampling strategies determine diagnostic sensitivity in cervical lymph node tuberculosis: a retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate how pathological types and sampling methods affect positivity rates of five diagnostic techniques in cervical lymph node tuberculosis. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 198 surgically confirmed cervical lymph node tuberculosis patients from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital. Cases were stratified by pathological subtypes and collection methods. The specimens were tested using acid-fast bacillus smear microscopy, mycobacterium tuberculosis culture, quantitative polymerase chain reaction for tuberculosis DNA, simultaneous amplification and testing for tuberculosis, or GeneXpert. Results: All 198 cases showed granulomatous inflammation. Liquefactive necrosis occurred in 91.92% (182/198) of cases, with caseous necrosis in 87.88% (174/198), adjacent soft-tissue necrosis in 57.07% (113/198), and suppurative inflammation in 20.20% (40/198). Solid alterations without liquefactive necrosis (coagulative necrosis/non-necrotizing lymphadenitis) comprised 8.08% (16/198). The overall etiological positivity rate was 90.40% (179/198). GeneXpert showed highest sensitivity (90.36%), followed by tuberculosis DNA (74.24%), simultaneous amplification and testing (40.22%), Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture (16.67%), and acid-fast bacillus smear (14.72%). Among 33 culture-positive cases, 32 (96.97%) were GeneXpert positive. Rifampicin resistance detected by GeneXpert was 5.62% (10/178). In specimens with caseous necrosis, soft-tissue necrosis, or liquefactive necrosis, GeneXpert positivity significantly exceeded tuberculosis DNA (all P < 0.01). Liquefactive necrosis samples showed higher positivity than solid-change specimens for all techniques except culture (all P < 0.001). Drainage specimens yielded higher tuberculosis DNA and GeneXpert positivity than surgical resection specimens. Combining surgical and drainage specimens increased culture positivity to 26.09%. Conclusion: Etiological positivity rates in cervical lymph node tuberculosis correlate with pathological features. Maximizing liquefactive necrosis sampling for the GeneXpert assay and combining different sampling techniques (such as, surgical resection, incision and drainage, needle biopsy) for etiological detection enhances diagnostic accuracy.
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.