The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Use in routine clinical practice of two commercial blood tests for diagnosis of infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis: a prospective study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND Two commercial blood assays for the diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection--T-SPOT.TB and QuantiFERON-TB Gold--have been separately compared with the tuberculin skin test. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of all three tests in the same population sample. METHODS We did a prospective study in 393 consecutively enrolled patients who were tested simultaneously with T-SPOT.TB and QuantiFERON-TB Gold because of suspected latent or active tuberculosis. 318 patients also had results available for a tuberculin skin test. FINDINGS Overall agreement with the skin test was similar (T-SPOT.TB kappa=0.508, QuantiFERON-TB Gold kappa=0.460), but fewer BCG-vaccinated individuals were identified as positive by the two blood assays than by the tuberculin skin test (p=0.003 for T-SPOT.TB and p<0.0001 for QuantiFERON-TB Gold). Indeterminate results were significantly more frequent with QuantiFERON-TB Gold (11%, 43 of 383) than with T-SPOT.TB (3%, 12 of 383; p<0.0001) and were associated with immunosuppressive treatments for both tests. Age younger than 5 years was significantly associated with indeterminate results with QuantiFERON-TB Gold (p=0.003), but not with T-SPOT.TB. Overall, T-SPOT.TB produced significantly more positive results (38%, n=144, vs 26%, n=100, with QuantiFERON-TB Gold; p<0.0001), and close contacts of patients with active tuberculosis were more likely to be positive with T-SPOT.TB than with QuantiFERON-TB Gold (p=0.0010). INTERPRETATION T-SPOT.TB and QuantiFERON-TB Gold have higher specificity than the tuberculin skin test. Rates of indeterminate and positive results, however, differ between the blood tests, suggesting that they might provide different results in routine clinical practice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Practical Statistics for Medical Research
Altman, D. G. (1990) · doi:10.1201/9780429258589 · Cited by 10,668
Cited by
Lewinsohn, D. M., Leonard, M. K., LoBue, P. A., Cohn, D. L., Daley, C. L., Desmond, E., Keane, J., Lewinsohn, D. A., Loeffler, A. M., Mazurek, G. H., et al. (2017) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciw694 · Cited by 992
Self-citationMenzies, D., Pai, M., & Comstock, G. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-146-5-200703060-00006 · Cited by 984
Thwaites, G., Fisher, M., Hemingway, C., Scott, G., Solomon, T., & Innes, J. (2009) · Journal of Infection · doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2009.06.011 · Cited by 666
Mack, U., Migliori, G. B., Sester, M., Rieder, H. L., Ehlers, S., Goletti, D., Bossink, A., Magdorf, K., Hölscher, C., Kampmann, B., et al. (2009) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/09031936.00120908 · Cited by 591
Newton, S. M., Brent, A. J., Anderson, S., Whittaker, E., & Kampmann, B. (2008) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(08)70182-8 · Cited by 480
Metadata
- Authors
- Ferrara, G., Losi, M., D'Amico, R., Roversi, P., Piro, R., Meacci, M., Meccugni, B., Dori, I. M., Andreani, A., Bergamini, B. M., Mussini, C., Rumpianesi, F., Fabbri, L. M., & Richeldi, L.
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-04
- Volume
- 367
- Issue
- 9519
- Pages
- 1328-1334
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2104577284
- Cited by
- 505
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 49.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Use in routine clinical practice of two commercial blood tests for diagnosis of infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis: a prospective study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68579-6
- The paper
- Ferrara, G., Losi, M., D'Amico, R., Roversi, P., Piro, R., Meacci, M., Meccugni, B., Dori, I. M., Andreani, A., Bergamini, B. M., Mussini, C., Rumpianesi, F., Fabbri, L. M., & Richeldi, L. (2006). Use in routine clinical practice of two commercial blood tests for diagnosis of infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis: a prospective study. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68579-6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.