메뉴 건너뛰기
소속 기관 / 학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
고객센터 ENG
주제분류

논문 기본 정보

저자정보
출처
Springer Science and Business Media LLC Scientific Reports 13(1)
오류 신고하기
표지

검색

    초록·키워드

    Current WHO-recommended diagnostic tools for tuberculosis infection (TBI) have well-known limitations and viable alternatives are urgently needed. We compared the diagnostic performance and accuracy of the novel QIAreach QuantiFERON-TB assay (QIAreach; index) to the QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus assay (QFT-Plus; reference). The sample included 261 adults (≥ 18 years) recruited at community-based TB case finding events. Of these, 226 underwent Tuberculin Skin Tests and 200 returned for interpretation (TST; comparator). QIAreach processing and TST reading were completed at lower-level healthcare facilities. We conducted matched-pair comparisons for QIAreach and TST with QFT-Plus, calculated sensitivity, specificity and area under a receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC), and analyzed concordant-/discordant-pair interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) levels. QIAreach sensitivity and specificity were 98.5% and 72.3%, respectively, for an AUC of 0.85. TST sensitivity (53.2%) at a 5 mm induration threshold was significantly below QIAreach, while specificity (82.4%) was statistically equivalent. The corrected mean IFN-γ level of 0.08 IU/ml and corresponding empirical threshold (0.05) of false-positive QIAreach results were significantly lower than the manufacturer-recommended QFT-Plus threshold (≥ 0.35 IU/ml). Despite QIAreach's higher sensitivity at equivalent specificity to TST, the high number of false positive results and low specificity limit its utility and highlight the continued need to expand the diagnostic toolkit for TBI.

    본문·목차

    최근 본 자료 전체보기