ArticleDigital health
Development and validation of a diagnostic clinical prediction model for suspected pulmonary tuberculosis in adults: A retrospective analysis.
Article in Digital health. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Early and accurate diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) is critical for disease control. This study aimed to develop and validate a clinical prediction model to differentiate adult inpatients with suspected PTB. Methods: A retrospective cohort of 602 adults admitted to Changsha Central Hospital (January-October 2019) with suspected PTB was randomly divided into a modeling group (n = 421) and an internal validation group (n = 181). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses in the modeling cohort identified independent clinical and radiological predictors. Model performance was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test), and decision curve analysis. External validation was performed using 213 similar patients from Hunan Chest Hospital (January-October 2019). Results: Five independent predictors were retained: age (years), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (mm/h), upper-lobe or dorsal-segment infiltration on chest imaging, presence of multifocal polymorphic pulmonary lesions, and pleural thickening (all p < 0.05). In the modeling cohort, AUC = 0.977 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.964-0.989); at the optimal cutoff probability of 0.611, sensitivity was 95.9% and specificity 89.4%. Calibration was satisfactory in both internal (Hosmer-Lemeshow p = 0.815) and external (p = 0.973) validation cohorts. Decision curve analysis demonstrated net clinical benefit across relevant threshold probabilities. Conclusions: The proposed five-variable model exhibited excellent discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility in both internal and external cohorts. Its simplicity and reliance on routinely available data make it a practical adjunct for clinicians in diagnosing PTB among adults with suspected disease.
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.