ReviewInternational journal of general medicine2026
An Evidence Atlas of Diagnostic Tests for Genitourinary Tuberculosis: A Laboratory-Centered Framework.
Review in International journal of general medicine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Genitourinary tuberculosis (GUTB) remains difficult to diagnose because of nonspecific clinical manifestations, low bacterial burden, and variability in diagnostic performance across laboratory methods and specimen types. However, the current evidence landscape of laboratory diagnostic tests for GUTB remains fragmented. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Studies reporting laboratory diagnostic methods and diagnostic performance for GUTB were included. Core data regarding diagnostic methods, specimen types, diagnostic sensitivity, and turnaround time were extracted and integrated into an evidence atlas using evidence matrices, bubble plots, and Sankey diagrams. Results: A total of 21 studies were included in the evidence atlas. Urine-related specimens were reported in 19 of 21 studies (90.5%), while first-morning urine specimens were used in 9 studies (42.9%). Molecular diagnostic methods, particularly Xpert MTB/RIF, polymerase chain reaction/nucleic acid amplification tests (PCR/NAAT), and simultaneous amplification testing for tuberculosis (SAT-TB), represented the most frequently investigated diagnostic approaches in urine-based specimens. PCR/NAAT-based methods showed reported diagnostic sensitivity ranging from 42.9% to 94.3%, whereas Xpert MTB/RIF demonstrated reported sensitivity ranging from 39.0% to 89.0% across included studies. Evidence matrix and Sankey diagram analyses showed that urine and first-morning urine combined with molecular diagnostic methods represented the most evidence-rich diagnostic pathway in the current literature. In contrast, evidence related to special specimen types, histological examinations, and emerging molecular diagnostic technologies remained limited. Conclusion: This evidence atlas provides a structured overview of the current evidence landscape of laboratory diagnostic tests for genitourinary tuberculosis. Urine-based specimens combined with molecular diagnostic methods currently represent the most extensively studied diagnostic pathway. Further studies involving special specimen types, emerging molecular diagnostic technologies, and high-risk populations are needed to strengthen the evidence base for laboratory diagnosis of genitourinary 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.