ArticleThorax2002
Screening for tuberculosis: the port of arrival scheme compared with screening in general practice and the homeless.
Article in Thorax, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies to improve vaccination rates in people who are homeless: A systematic review.Vaccine · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Screening for latent TB, HIV, and hepatitis B/C in new migrants in a high prevalence area of London, UK: a cross-sectional study.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Trial
- Diagnostic yield of polymerase chain reaction on induced sputum for pulmonary tuberculosis: A single-center retrospective cross-sectional study.Infectious medicine · 2025Article
- Recent Travel and Tuberculosis in Migrants: Data From a Low-Incidence Country.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Article
- Responding to pandemics and other disease outbreaks in homeless populations: A review of the literature and content analysis.Health & social care in the community · 2022Review
- A systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions to tackle tuberculosis in homeless people.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2018Review
- Outcomes analysis of new entrant screening for active tuberculosis in Heathrow and Gatwick airports, United Kingdom 2009/2010.BMC infectious diseases · 2016Article
- The impact of migration on tuberculosis epidemiology and control in high-income countries: a review.BMC medicine · 2016Review
- Efficacy of Induced Sputum for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Adults Unable to Expectorate Sputum.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2015Article
- Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of screening immigrants schemes for tuberculosis (TB) on arrival from high TB endemic countries to low TB prevalent countries.African health sciences · 2014Review
- Challenges of tuberculosis management in high and low prevalence countries in a mobile world.Primary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group · 2014Article
- Article
- Different screening strategies (single or dual) for the diagnosis of suspected latent tuberculosis: a cost effectiveness analysis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2010Article
- Impact on and use of an inner-city London Infectious Diseases Department by international migrants: a questionnaire survey.BMC health services research · 2007Article
- Article
- The new tuberculosis: raised awareness of tuberculosis is vital in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2007Article
- Screening for neglected tropical diseases and other infections in refugee and asylum-seeker populations in the United Kingdom.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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTuberculosis is increasing in London, especially in those recently entering the UK from an area of high incidence. Screening through the port of arrival scheme has a poor yield and has been considered discriminatory.
methodsA study was undertaken to compare the yield and costs of screening new entrants in a hospital based new entrants' clinic (1262 referrals from the port of arrival), general practice (1311 new registrations), and centres for the homeless (267 individuals) using a symptom questionnaire and tuberculin testing if indicated. Clinical outcome measures were cases of tuberculosis, tuberculin reactors requiring chemoprophylaxis and BCG vaccinations. Cost outcomes were cost per individual screened and cost per individual per case of tuberculosis prevented.
resultsVerbal screening limited tuberculin testing to 16% of those in general practice; most were tested at the other two locations. Intervention (BCG vaccination, chemoprophylaxis or treatment) occurred in 27% of those who received tuberculin testing. Attendance for screening was 17% of the port of arrival notifications (63% had registered with a GP), 54% in primary care, and 67% in the homeless (42% registered with a GP). Costs for screening an individual in general practice, hostels for the homeless, and the new entrants' clinic were 1.26 pounds sterling, 13.17 pounds sterling and 96.36 pounds sterling, respectively, while the cost per person screened per case of tuberculosis prevented was 6.32 pounds sterling, 23.00 pounds sterling, and 10.00 pounds sterling, respectively. The benefit of screening was highly sensitive to the number of cases of tuberculosis identified and case holding during treatment.
conclusionScreening for tuberculosis in primary care is feasible and could replace hospital screening of new arrivals for those registered with a GP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.