ArticleIJID regions2026
Agreement and systematic bias between QuantiFERON chemiluminescent immunoassay and QuantiFERON enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in the detection of latent tuberculosis infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in IJID regions, 2026. 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.
- Immunoinformatic Design and Evaluation of a Multi-Epitope mRNA Vaccine RP14914P Targeting Latent Tuberculosis Infection.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEnzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)-based QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus ELISA) testing is associated with manual variability and indeterminate results. The transition from QFT-Plus ELISA to chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) for QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus CLIA) testing represents a significant methodological evolution that requires comprehensive evaluation. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess method agreement, characterize systematic bias patterns, evaluate clinical concordance between DiaSorin's QFT-Plus CLIA and QIAGEN's (QFT-Plus ELISA) methodologies, and determine sources of heterogeneity across diverse populations for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) detection.
methodsWe searched the PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases from January 2019 to January 2025 for studies comparing QFT-Plus CLIA and QFT-Plus ELISA methodologies for LTBI detection. Two reviewers independently screened the studies and assessed their quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. We conducted a meta-analysis of agreement measures using random-effects models, systematic bias characterization, meta-regression analysis of the sources of heterogeneity, and clinical subgroup analysis. Evidence certainty was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251031884).
resultsA total of 16 studies comprising 4169 participants were included. A meta-analysis of 10 studies (n = 2932) revealed a substantial overall concordance of 88.76% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83.57-93.95). Among the seven studies with complete data to calculate positive and negative agreement measures (n = 1305), the pooled positive agreement was 91.3% (95% CI 88.95-93.65) and the negative agreement was 93.89% (95% CI 92.18-95.6). The comparative analysis revealed a mean discordance rate of 6.56% (range: 0.44-16.67%), with a weighted mean directional bias of +0.2% (showing minimal overall directional preference between platforms). Significant heterogeneity was observed (I² = 95.8%,
conclusionsDiasorin's QFT-Plus CLIA and QIAGEN's QFT-Plus ELISA demonstrated substantial overall agreement in detecting LTBI, with the strongest concordance for clearly positive and negative results. Laboratories implementing QFT-Plus CLIA platforms should consider verification studies, and future research should evaluate the clinical significance of discordant results and optimize interpretive algorithms for diverse epidemiologic settings.
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.