ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Tongue swab
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
32 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiagnostic performance of tongue swab
methodsTongue swabs were collected from adult household contacts of TB patients (HHC Cohort), and symptomatic adults presenting to clinics with presumptive TB (Clinic Cohort), at eight South African sites. TB Cases were defined by positive sputum Xpert Ultra or liquid culture, performed in all participants; and matched ~1:3 (HHC Cohort) or ~1:2 (Clinic Cohort) to Controls without TB. Tongue swabs in both cohorts were tested by high-volume qPCR; and in the Clinic Cohort, also by sequence-specific magnetic capture (SSMaC) with qPCR.
resultsThe Clinic Cohort included 217 TB Cases (100% symptomatic) and 437 Controls. The HHC Cohort included 44 TB Cases (84.1% asymptomatic) and 136 Controls. In the Clinic Cohort, sensitivity of SSMaC with qPCR was 73.2% (specificity 94.6%), but not significantly higher than high-volume qPCR (63.8%;
conclusionsSensitivity of tongue swab high-volume qPCR for community-based, household screening for asymptomatic TB was low, approximately half that of facility-based triage for symptomatic TB, but increased with radiographic severity and sputum bacillary load.
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.