ArticleThorax1996
Comparison of polymerase chain reaction for IS6110 and Amplicor in the diagnosis of tuberculosis.
Article in Thorax, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of GeneXpert in the diagnosis of spinal tuberculosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Narra J · 2024Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of in-house PCR for pulmonary tuberculosis in smear-positive patients: meta-analysis and metaregression.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2009Pooled it
- Comparison of two laboratory-developed PCR methods for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in Brazilian patients with and without HIV infection.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2011Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of PCR for the rapid diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis.BMC infectious diseases · 2009Article
- Review
- Comparison of Roche Cobas Amplicor Mycobacterium tuberculosis assay with in-house PCR and culture for detection of M. tuberculosis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 1998Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPolymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA offers the potential of a sensitive and specific diagnostic test for tuberculosis. To evaluate this technique from the clinician's perspective, samples were collected from patients with chronic respiratory disease and the sensitivity and specificity of a newly introduced commercially available PCR kit (Amplicor) was compared with that of an established method to detect the target sequence IS6110.
methodsSputum or bronchial washings from patients with active tuberculosis, previously treated tuberculosis or other selected respiratory illnesses were analysed by both techniques and their sensitivity and specificity determined.
resultsAmplicor was more specific than IS6110 in the diagnosis of active infection (98% versus 79%). Both techniques were equally sensitive (92%).
conclusionThese results suggest that analysis of respiratory samples by Amplicor PCR in inner city populations of patients has greater specificity for a diagnosis of active tuberculosis than PCR for IS6110, and thus Amplicor PCR may aid the clinician in making a diagnosis of active 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.