ArticleHeliyon2024
Diagnostic accuracy of galactomannan and lateral flow assay in invasive aspergillosis: A diagnostic meta-analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomarkers in Invasive Pulmonary Fungal Infections: Where Do We Stand?Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Management of mould pneumonia in resource-limited settings in Asia: A Delphi-based consensus statement by the Asia Fungal Working Group.Medical mycology · 2025Article
- Sensitivity of serum galactomannan antigen in the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis in patients with obstructive pulmonary diseases (asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases).Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Approach to Pneumonia in Immunocompromised Hosts.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Bronchoscopic Diagnosis of Severe Respiratory Infections.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in the post-COVID-19 era: diagnosis, treatment, and what lies ahead.Therapeutic advances in infectious diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Efficient diagnosis of patients at high risk for invasive Methods: A meta-analysis using case-control studies was performed to assess the diagnostic performance of LFA alone or galactomannan (GM) combined with LFA (GM-LFA) as screening tests for IA. The sensitivity, specificity, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed. Results: Nineteen studies with 2838 patients were included. The pooled effect sizes for different indicators included: sensitivity (77 % for LFA and 75 % for GM-LFA), specificity (88 % for LFA and 87 % for GM-LFA), positive likelihood ratio (6.65 for LFA and 12.02 for GM-LFA), negative likelihood ratio (0.26 for LFA and 0.27 for GM-LFA), and the diagnostic odds ratio (25.81 for LFA and 44.87 for GM-LFA). The area under the curve was 0.91 for LFA and 0.94 for GM-LFA with a cut-off value ≥ 0.5. Conclusion: The present meta-analysis suggested that LFA or GM-LFA at an optical density index (ODI) cutoff of ≥0.5 was a useful diagnostic tool for IA in patients. The results showed no significant differences in the accuracy of LFA alone and GM-LFA in diagnosing IA. In the clinical diagnosis and treatment of IA, LFA can be recommended if timely results are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.