ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Blood-based cepheid 3-gene host response test for TB disease: diagnostic performance at a specialized respiratory hospital in China.
Article 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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Cepheid 3-gene Host Response Test (Xpert-MTB-HR) for tuberculosis disease (TBD).
methodsAmong 1,128 participants enrolled in this study, 740 were diagnosed with TBD, and the remaining 388 were classified as Non-TB participants, including 218 cases of other pulmonary diseases (OPD), 48 cases of TB infection (TBI), and 122 healthy controls (HC). TB scores were obtained for all participants using the Xpert-MTB-HR assay, and diagnostic performance was evaluated by ROC curves and AUC.
resultsThe corresponding AUCs of the TB score for distinguishing TBD from non-TB, HC, OPD, and TBI were 0.717 (95% CI, 0.686-0.748; sensitivity 63.6%, specificity 72.7%), 0.846 (95% CI, 0.814-0.878; sensitivity 70.9%, specificity 88.5%), 0.625 (95% CI, 0.583-0.667; sensitivity 54.9%, specificity 67.9%), and 0.807 (95% CI, 0.761-0.853; sensitivity 60.6%, specificity 93.8%), respectively. TB scores were negatively correlated with bacterial load and C-reactive protein levels (both p < 0.001). Differences in TB scores were observed across treatment duration groups in this cross-sectional analysis.
conclusionXpert MTB-HR did not fully meet WHO performance targets in the overall population, with performance influenced by pathogen load, particularly in low bacterial load or post-treatment patients. TB score showed patterns consistent with treatment response, warranting longitudinal validation. CLINICAL TRIAL: Not applicable.
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.