ArticleBMJ open2012
Comparison of screening strategies to improve the diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection in the HIV-positive population: a cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- RAPID HOME-BASED HIV TESTING TO REDUCE COSTS IN A LARGE TUBERCULOSIS COHORT STUDY.Public health action · 2013Article
- Mycobacterium bovis DNA detection in colostrum as a potential indicator of vaccination effectiveness against bovine tuberculosis.Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI · 2013Article
- HIV status among patients with tuberculosis and HIV testing practices by Connecticut health care providers.Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS CareArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHIV is the most important risk factor for progression of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) to active tuberculosis (TB). Detection and treatment of LTBI is necessary to reduce the increasing burden of TB in the UK, but a unified LTBI screening approach has not been adopted.
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of a TB risk-focused approach to LTBI screening in the HIV-positive population against current UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance.
designProspective cohort study.
settingTwo urban HIV treatment centres in London, UK.
participants114 HIV-infected individuals with defined TB risk factors were enrolled prospectively as part of ongoing studies into HIV and TB co-infection. OUTCOME MEASURES: The yield and case detection rate of LTBI cases within the research study were compared with those generated by the NICE criteria.
results17/114 (14.9%, 95% CI 8.3 to 21.5) had evidence of LTBI. Limiting screening to those meeting NICE criteria for the general population (n=43) would have detected just over half of these, 9/43 (20.9%, 95% CI 8.3 to 33.5) and those meeting criteria for HIV co-infection (n=74) would only have captured 8/74(10.8%, 95% CI 3.6 to 18.1) cases. The case detection rates from the study and NICE approaches were not significantly different. LTBI was associated with the presence of multiple TB risk factors (p=0.002).
conclusionAdoption of a TB risk-focused screening algorithm that does not use CD4 count stratification could prevent more cases of TB reactivation, without changing the case detection rate. These findings should be used to inform a large-scale study to create unified guidelines.
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.