Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Year of publication
- 2023 (2)
Document Type
- Journal article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (1)
- CXCL10 (1)
- HCW (1)
- IFNG (1)
- QuantiFERON\(^®\)-TB Gold Plus (1)
- RT-qPCR (1)
- T-Track\(^®\) TB (1)
- TB (1)
- active TB (1)
- emergency information (1)
Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the leading causes of death by an infectious disease. It remains a major health burden worldwide, in part due to misdiagnosis. Therefore, improved diagnostic tests allowing the faster and more reliable diagnosis of patients with active TB are urgently needed. This prospective study examined the performance of the new molecular whole-blood test T-Track\(^®\) TB, which relies on the combined evaluation of IFNG and CXCL10 mRNA levels, and compared it to that of the QuantiFERON\(^®\)-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Diagnostic accuracy and agreement analyses were conducted on the whole blood of 181 active TB patients and 163 non-TB controls. T-Track\(^®\) TB presented sensitivity of 94.9% and specificity of 93.8% for the detection of active TB vs. non-TB controls. In comparison, the QFT-Plus ELISA showed sensitivity of 84.3%. The sensitivity of T-Track\(^®\) TB was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than that of QFT-Plus. The overall agreement of T-Track\(^®\) TB with QFT-Plus to diagnose active TB was 87.9%. Out of 21 samples with discordant results, 19 were correctly classified by T-Track\(^®\) TB while misclassified by QFT-Plus (T-Track\(^®\) TB-positive/QFT-Plus-negative), and two samples were misclassified by T-Track\(^®\) TB while correctly classified by QFT-Plus (T-Track\(^®\) TB-negative/QFT-Plus-positive). Our results demonstrate the excellent performance of the T-Track\(^®\) TB molecular assay and its suitability to accurately detect TB infection and discriminate active TB patients from non-infected controls.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a flood of — often contradictory — evidence. HCWs had to develop strategies to locate information that supported their work. We investigated the information-seeking of different HCW groups in Germany. Methods: In December 2020, we conducted online surveys on COVID-19 information sources, strategies, assigned trustworthiness, and barriers — and in February 2021, on COVID-19 vaccination information sources. Results were analyzed descriptively; group comparisons were performed using χ\(^2\)-tests. Results: For general COVID-19-related medical information (413 participants), non-physicians most often selected official websites (57%), TV (57%), and e-mail/newsletters (46%) as preferred information sources — physicians chose official websites (63%), e-mail/newsletters (56%), and professional journals (55%). Non-physician HCWs used Facebook/YouTube more frequently. The main barriers were insufficient time and access issues. Non-physicians chose abstracts (66%), videos (45%), and webinars (40%) as preferred information strategy; physicians: overviews with algorithms (66%), abstracts (62%), webinars (48%). Information seeking on COVID-19 vaccination (2700 participants) was quite similar, however, with newspapers being more often used by non-physicians (63%) vs. physician HCWs (70%). Conclusion: Non-physician HCWs more often consulted public information sources. Employers/institutions should ensure the supply of professional, targeted COVID-19 information for different HCW groups.