2020
DOI: 10.14744/bmj.2021.93823
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Concordance between the tuberculin skin test and interferon gamma release assays for diagnosing latent tuberculosis infection in patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Nazlıgül. et al also found that IGST was a better method than TST as a latent TB screening method in 47 patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis [17]. In addition, in our clinical practice, IGST was used for latent TB screening before biological agent treatment in accordance with the literature.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 62%
“…Nazlıgül. et al also found that IGST was a better method than TST as a latent TB screening method in 47 patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis [17]. In addition, in our clinical practice, IGST was used for latent TB screening before biological agent treatment in accordance with the literature.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 62%
“…The discrepancy was observed in a quarter of the results with a high trend in the TST (QFT−/TST+), this could be explained by the false-positive results which are common in TST due to cross-reaction with the BCG vaccine or environmental non-tuberculous mycobacteria [11].…”
Section: Appropriate Cut-off Points From Tst In Accord With High Agre...mentioning
confidence: 93%
“…The TST measures the delayed-type hypersensitivity response to intradermal injection of a mixture of purified protein that derivatives from many mycobacterial antigens, including M. tuberculosis, M. bovis BCG, and non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) [9]. However, this test is characterized by a high rate of false positive in high TB burden settings and in immunocompromised subjects [10] [11] [12]. Furthermore, this test requires a second visit within 48 hours to 72 hours for result reading and interpretation [13].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%