ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2026
Sensitivity of Tuberculosis Infection Diagnostic Tests Among Different Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in Open forum 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We aimed to estimate the sensitivity of skin and blood-based tuberculosis (TB) infection tests and assess variation in sensitivity by test type and population characteristics. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of studies involving individuals with microbiologically confirmed TB disease (surrogate reference standard) who underwent TB infection testing. Searches were performed across databases up to February 24, 2025. Data were extracted using a standardized form and pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Primary analyses focused on tests performed before or during TB disease treatment. Results: From 103 031 records, 307 studies were included: 110 evaluated tuberculin skin testing (TST), 185 QuantiFERON (QFT), 107 T-SPOT.TB, 10 antigen-based skin tests, and 5 TB-IGRA. Sensitivity was consistently lower among people with HIV. Among populations without vs with HIV, respectively, TST ≥5 mm sensitivity was 80.3% (95% CI, 73.7%-85.5%) and 53.6% (95% CI, 41.5%-65.4%), TST ≥10 mm sensitivity was 75.1% (95% CI, 68.8%-80.5%) and 64.5% (95% CI, 36.8%-85.0%), antigen-based skin test sensitivity was 77.7% (95% CI, 69.7%-84%) and 61.3% (95% CI, 39.6%-79.3%), QFT sensitivity was 82.6% (95% CI, 80.7%-84.3%) and 66.5% (95% CI, 59.8%-72.6%), and T-SPOT.TB sensitivity was 88.2% (95% CI, 86.2%-90.0%) and 69% (95% CI, 56.6%-79.2%). TB-IGRA was only evaluated in populations without HIV (sensitivity, 85.4%; 95% CI, 81.3%-88.7%). Sensitivity in other populations targeted for TB infection testing generally fell between estimates among people with and without HIV. In comparative analyses, TST ≥5 mm and TST ≥10 mm had comparable sensitivity to QFT; however, T-SPOT.TB had superior sensitivity to both TST ≥5 mm and QFT. Conclusions: TB infection test sensitivity varies by test type and population. All tests showed reduced sensitivity in people with HIV. T-SPOT.TB demonstrated the highest sensitivity across populations.
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.