Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 275

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Serial Testing of Health Care Workers for Tuberculosis Using Interferon-γ Assay

Open access
Pai, Madhukar, Joshi, Rajnish, Dogra, Sandeep, Mendiratta, Deepak K., Narang, Pratibha, Kalantri, Shriprakash, Reingold, Arthur L., Colford, John M., Riley, Lee W., Menzies, Dick·2006·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

RATIONALE: Although interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) assays are promising alternatives to the tuberculin skin test (TST), their serial testing performance is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare TST and IFN-gamma conversions and reversions in healthcare workers. METHODS: We prospectively followed-up 216 medical and nursing students in India who underwent baseline and repeat testing (after 18 mo) with TST and QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT). TST conversions were defined as reactions greater than or equal to 10 mm, with increments of 6 or 10 mm over baseline. QFT conversions were defined as baseline IFN-gamma less than 0.35 and follow-up IFN-gamma greater than or equal to 0.35 or 0.70 IU/ml. QFT reversions were defined as baseline IFN-gamma greater than or equal to 0.35 and follow-up IFN-gamma less than 0.35 IU/ml. RESULTS: Of the 216 participants, 48 (22%) were TST-positive, and 38 (18%) were QFT-positive at baseline. Among 147 participants with concordant baseline negative results, TST conversions occurred in 14 (9.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.3-15.5) using the 6 mm increment definition, and 6 (4.1%; 95% CI = 1.5-8.7) using the 10 mm increment definition. QFT conversions occurred in 17/147 participants (11.6%; 95% CI = 6.9-17.9) using the definition of IFN-gamma greater than or equal to 0.35 IU/ml, and 11/147 participants (7.5%; 95% CI = 3.8-13.0) using IFN-gamma greater than or equal to 0.70 IU/ml. Agreement between TST (10 mm increment) and QFT conversions (>or= 0.70 IU/ml) was 96% (kappa = 0.70). QFT reversions occurred in 2/28 participants (7%) with baseline concordant positive results, as compared with 7/10 participants (70%) with baseline discordant results (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: IFN-gamma assay shows promise for serial testing, but repeat results need to be interpreted carefully. To meaningfully interpret serial results, the optimal thresholds to distinguish new infections from nonspecific variations must be determined.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1164/rccm.200604-472oc

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 21 references

Cited by

See all 275

Metadata

Authors
Pai, M., Joshi, R., Dogra, S., Mendiratta, D. K., Narang, P., Kalantri, S., Reingold, A. L., Colford, J. M., Riley, L. W., & Menzies, D.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2006-08-01
Volume
174
Issue
3
Pages
349-355
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2028144733
Cited by
275
References
21
FWCI
17.01
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: Serial Testing of Health Care Workers for Tuberculosis Using Interferon-γ Assay. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.200604-472oc
The paper
Pai, M., Joshi, R., Dogra, S., Mendiratta, D. K., Narang, P., Kalantri, S., Reingold, A. L., Colford, J. M., Riley, L. W., & Menzies, D. (2006). Serial Testing of Health Care Workers for Tuberculosis Using Interferon-γ Assay. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200604-472oc

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.