ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2026
Consensus-based evaluation of RIDASCREEN
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeInterferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs) are widely used to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection by measuring antigen-specific T-cell responses through interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) release. Interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (IP-10), an IFN-inducible cytokine released in higher concentrations after antigen stimulation, may improve assay robustness and sensitivity. We evaluated the performance of the novel IP-10-based RIDASCREEN
methodsIn this prospective study, 209 patients undergoing routine T-SPOT
resultsAccording to the consensus classification, 19/209 (9.1%) samples were positive, 186/209 (89.0%) negative, and 2/209 (1.0%) equivocal. Full three-way concordance was observed in 83.7% of patients, and true discordance was uncommon (7.7%). RIDASCREEN
conclusionRIDASCREEN
Indexed as
Identifiers
42399596What 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.