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.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Studying intrapulmonary pharmacokinetics for tuberculosis treatment: a systematic review of methodology.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2025Pooled it
- Improving cascade outcomes for active TB: A global systematic review and meta-analysis of TB interventions.PLoS medicine · 2023Pooled it
- High HIV and active tuberculosis prevalence and increased mortality risk in adults with symptoms of TB: a systematic review and meta-analyses.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2018Pooled it
- Comparison of sputum collection methods for tuberculosis diagnosis: a systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis.The Lancet. Global health · 2017Pooled it
- The potential impact of urine-LAM diagnostics on tuberculosis incidence and mortality: A modelling analysis.PLoS medicine · 2020Article
- Performance of the G4 XpertBMC infectious diseases · 2016Article
- Perceived risk of tuberculosis infection among healthcare workers in Swaziland.BMC infectious diseases · 2016Article
- Induced sputum is safe and well-tolerated for TB diagnosis in a resource-poor primary healthcare setting.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
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
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.