Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 257

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of two commercial interferon-γ assays for diagnosing Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection

Open access
Lee, J. Y., Choi, H. J., Park, I-N., Hong, S-B., Oh, Y-M., Lim, C-M., Lee, S. D., Koh, Y., Kim, W. S., Kim, D. S., Kim, W. D., Shim, T. S.·2006·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

The clinical usefulness of ex vivo interferon-γ assays may largely depend on the assay format and epidemiological status of tuberculosis (TB) in the region studied. From July 2004 to June 2005 a prospective comparison study was undertaken at a tertiary referral hospital in South Korea. The results of tuberculin skin tests (TST) and the commercially available QuantiFERON-TB Gold (QFT-G) and T SPOT-TB (SPOT) assays were compared in an intermediate TB-burden country. Of the 224 participants studied, results from all three tests (TST, QFT-G, and SPOT) were available in 218; 87 with active TB and 131 at a low risk for TB. Using 10 mm as a cut-off for TST, SPOT sensitivity (96.6%) was significantly higher than that seen for TST (66.7%) and QFT-G (70.1%). QFT-G showed superior specificity over TST (91.6 versus 78.6%). Although the specificity of QFT-G was higher than that of SPOT (91.6 versus 84.7%), the difference was not statistically significant. Whilst some differences were found in the performance of the two commercialised interferon-γ assays, they seemed to be superior in their detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection compared with tuberculin skin tests. The most appropriate choice of interferon-γ assay to use may depend on the clinical setting.

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 · 10.1183/09031936.06.00016906

Cites

22 of 22 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 22 references

Cited by

See all 257

Metadata

Authors
Lee, J. Y., Choi, H. J., Park, I.-N., Hong, S.-B., Oh, Y.-M., Lim, C.-M., Lee, S. D., Koh, Y., Kim, W. S., Kim, D. S., Kim, W. D., & Shim, T. S.
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
2006-04-12
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
24-30
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W2134823509
Cited by
257
References
22
FWCI
23.32
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: Comparison of two commercial interferon-γ assays for diagnosing Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1183/09031936.06.00016906
The paper
Lee, J. Y., Choi, H. J., Park, I.-N., Hong, S.-B., Oh, Y.-M., Lim, C.-M., Lee, S. D., Koh, Y., Kim, W. S., Kim, D. S., Kim, W. D., & Shim, T. S. (2006). Comparison of two commercial interferon-γ assays for diagnosing Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.06.00016906

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.