Is screening immigrants for latent tuberculosis cost-effective?

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Description of the largest cluster of tuberculosis notified in Norway 1997-2011: is the Norwegian tuberculosis control programme serving its purpose for high risk groups?BMC public health · 2015
   Article
2. Persistent latent tuberculosis reactivation risk in United States immigrants.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2014
   Article
3. Delivering multi-disease screening to migrants for latent TB and blood-borne viruses in an emergency department setting: A feasibility study.Travel medicine and infectious disease
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Screening of immigrants in the UK for imported latent tuberculosis: a multicentre cohort study and cost-effectiveness analysis.2011

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as