Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41612277›Full record

SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2026

Comparison of menstrual blood and endometrial biopsy as specimens in the diagnosis of female genital tuberculosis: a systematic review.

Usha Nayak, Tejaswini Baral, Sonal Sekhar Miraj, Mohan K Manu, Muralidhar D Varma, Sandeep Samethadka Nayak, Jyothsna Manikkath

Abstract readSystematic ReviewComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Usha NayakDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka State, 576104, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-1145-4182
Tejaswini BaralDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka State, 576104, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6185-3600
Sonal Sekhar MirajDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka State, 576104, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3660-2022
Mohan K ManuDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka State, 576104, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9481-3189
Muralidhar D VarmaDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka State, 576104, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5546-5353
Sandeep Samethadka NayakDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale New Haven Health Bridgeport Hospital, 267 Grant Street, Bridgeport, CT 06610, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-1601-1466
Jyothsna ManikkathDepartment of Pharmaceutics, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal , Karnataka State, 576104, India. jyothsna.manikkath@manipal.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5329-2551

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFemale genital tuberculosis (FGTB) continues to be a significant problem worldwide. Endometrial biopsy (EB) is the most effective sample for detecting FGTB. However, biopsy is invasive and causes unwarranted suffering. Furthermore, a few studies have investigated non-invasively obtained menstrual blood (MB) as an alternative diagnostic sample for detecting FGTB. Hence, in this study, we are assessing MB as an alternative sample to EB for diagnosing FGTB.

methodA systematic literature search was conducted using the electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase until September 2024. All original studies that compared MB with samples of EB for diagnosing FGTB were included.

resultsA total of nine studies were obtained. The sensitivity of tests using MB as a sample ranged from 33.3% to 91.7%, while the specificity ranged from 82.9% to 97.3%. In the EB group, the sensitivity ranged from 64.8% to 95.8%, and the specificity ranged from 84.3% to 97.5%.

conclusionThe review suggests that MB could be a potential sample for diagnosing FGTB, as the specificity of tests using this sample is comparable to that from the EB group. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the identification number CRD42024509199.

Indexed as

EndometriumMenstruationTuberculosis, Female GenitalBiopsyFemaleHumansSensitivity and SpecificityDiagnosisFemale genital tuberculosisMenstrual bloodNon-invasiveSensitivitySpecificity

Identifiers

PMID41612277
PMCPMC12924429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.