Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25022447›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2014

A controlled trial of sputum induction and routine collection methods for TB diagnosis in a South African community.

H D Geldenhuys, A Whitelaw, M D Tameris, D Van As, K K A Luabeya, H Mahomed, G Hussey, W A Hanekom, M Hatherill

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Performance of the G4 XpertBMC infectious diseases · 2016
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

H D GeldenhuysSouth African Tuberculosis Vaccine Initiative (SATVI), Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine (IDM), University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa, hennie.geldenhuys@uct.ac.za.
A Whitelaw
M D Tameris
D Van As
K K A Luabeya
H Mahomed
G Hussey
W A Hanekom
M Hatherill

Funding

Diagnostic yield of induced sputum for rapid diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosisR01AI075603 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN · PI HATHERILL, MARK · 2007 to 2011
$410k
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI075603NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI75603-02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The diagnostic yield of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) by sputum induction (SI) at the first point of contact with health services, conducted in all patients with suspected TB regardless of the ability to expectorate spontaneously, has not been evaluated. We compared the diagnostic yield of SI to routine sputum collection in a South African community setting. Ambulatory patients with suspected TB provided a 'spot' expectorated sputum sample, an SI sample by hypertonic (5 %) saline nebulization, and early morning expectorated sputum sample. The diagnostic yield of sputum smear microscopy and liquid culture (denominator all subjects with any positive Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture), and time-to-positivity of culture were compared between SI and expectorated samples. A total of 555 subjects completed the SI procedure, of whom 132 (24 %) were human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected. One hundred and twenty-nine samples (129, 23 %) were M. tuberculosis culture-positive. The time-to-positivity of Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) culture was shorter for SI (median difference 2 days, p = 0.63) and for early morning expectorated sputum (median difference 2 days, p = 0.02) compared to spot expectorated sputum. However, there was no difference in the culture-positive diagnostic yield between SI and spot expectorated sputum [difference +0.7 %; confidence interval (CI) -7.0 to +8.5 %, p = 0.82] or SI and early morning expectorated sputum (difference +4.7 %; CI -3.2 to +12.5 %, p = 0.20) for all subjects or for HIV-infected subjects. SI reduces the time to positive M. tuberculosis culture, but does not increase the rate of positive culture compared to routine expectorated sputum collection. SI cannot be recommended as the routine collection method at first contact among ambulatory patients with suspected TB in high-burden communities.

Indexed as

AdultBacteriological TechniquesFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMaleMycobacterium tuberculosisSouth AfricaSpecimen HandlingSputumTuberculosis, Pulmonary

Identifiers

PMID25022447
PMCPMC4229508

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.