Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 537

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interferon-γ release assays for the diagnosis of active tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Sester, M., Sotgiu, G., Lange, C., Giehl, C., Girardi, E., Migliori, G.B., Bossink, A., Dheda, K., Diel, R., Dominguez, J., Lipman, M., Nemeth, J., Ravn, P., Winkler, S., Huitric, E., Sandgren, A., Manissero, D.·2011·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

Interferon-γ release assays (IGRAs) are now established for the immunodiagnosis of latent infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis in many countries. However, the role of IGRAs for the diagnosis of active tuberculosis (TB) remains unclear. Following preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) and quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS) guidelines, we searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases to identify studies published in January 2001–November 2009 that evaluated the evidence of using QuantiFERON-TB® Gold in-tube (QFT-G-IT) and T-SPOT.TB®directly on blood or extrasanguinous specimens for the diagnosis of active TB. The literature search yielded 844 studies and 27 met the inclusion criteria. In blood and extrasanguinous fluids, the pooled sensitivity for the diagnosis of active TB was 80% (95% CI 75–84%) and 48% (95% CI 39–58%) for QFT-G-IT, and 81% (95% CI 78–84%) and 88% (confirmed and unconfirmed cases) (95% CI 82–92%) for T-SPOT.TB®, respectively. In blood and extrasanguinous fluids, the pooled specificity was 79% (95% CI 75–82%) and 82% (95% CI 70–91%) for QFT-G-IT, and 59% (95% CI 56–62%) and 82% (95% CI 78–86%) for T-SPOT.TB®, respectively. Although the diagnostic sensitivities of both IGRAs were higher than that of tuberculin skin tests, it was still not high enough to use as a rule out test for TB. Positive evidence for the use of IGRAs in compartments other than blood will require more independent and carefully designed prospective studies.

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 · 10.1183/09031936.00114810

Cites

37 of 37 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 37 references

Cited by

See all 537

Metadata

Authors
Sester, M., Sotgiu, G., Lange, C., Giehl, C., Girardi, E., Migliori, G. B., Bossink, A., Dheda, K., Diel, R., Dominguez, J., Lipman, M., Nemeth, J., Ravn, P., Winkler, S., Huitric, E., Sandgren, A., & Manissero, D.
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
2010-09-16
Volume
37
Issue
1
Pages
100-111
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W2102099892
Cited by
537
References
37
FWCI
5.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Interferon-γ release assays for the diagnosis of active tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1183/09031936.00114810
The paper
Sester, M., Sotgiu, G., Lange, C., Giehl, C., Girardi, E., Migliori, G. B., Bossink, A., Dheda, K., Diel, R., Dominguez, J., Lipman, M., Nemeth, J., Ravn, P., Winkler, S., Huitric, E., Sandgren, A., & Manissero, D. (2011). Interferon-γ release assays for the diagnosis of active tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00114810

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.