ArticleScientific reports2026
Diagnostic value of phenotypic testing combined with molecular biology testing for tuberculosis.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
To evaluate the diagnostic value of combining phenotypic testing with molecular biology testing for tuberculosis, a retrospective study was conducted on 264 presumed pulmonary tuberculosis patients across four hospitals from July 2021 to September 2023. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated for two phenotypic testing methods-liquid-based sandwich cup acid-fast staining and mycobacterial culture-and two molecular biology testing methods-Boao MTB TaqMan-qPCR and GeneXpert MTB/RIF-using sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid specimens for the diagnosis of active pulmonary tuberculosis. Using the final clinical diagnosis as the reference standard, the combination of both two specimen types and all four testing methods yielded the highest AUROC of 0.917 and sensitivity of 83.3%, significantly outperforming either multiple specimens tested by a single method or multiple methods applied to a single specimen. Moreover, combining multiple tests on either sputum or BALF specimens provided superior diagnostic performance compared with individual tests alone. This study demonstrates that integrating phenotypic and molecular biology testing, across multiple specimen types can provide more accurate guidance for the early diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis.
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.