Caveat emptor? Meta-analysis of studies comparing self-observed therapy and directly observed therapy for tuberculosis.

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. Direct Observation of Treatment Provided by a Family Member as Compared to Non-Family Member among Children with New Tuberculosis: A Pragmatic, Non-Inferiority, Cluster-Randomized Trial in Gujarat, India.PloS one · 2016
   Trial
2. An attempt to reproduce a previous meta-analysis and a new analysis regarding the impact of directly observed therapy on tuberculosis treatment outcomes.PloS one · 2019
   Article
3. Reply to Moonan and Weis, Seaworth et al, and Nunn and Phillips.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2013
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Reply to Moonan and Weis, Seaworth et al, and Nunn and Phillips.2013
• Comment on
  A meta-analysis of self-administered vs directly observed therapy effect on microbiologic failure, relapse, and acquired drug resistance in tuberculosis patients.2013

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as