ArticlePloS one2014
Face mask sampling for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in expelled aerosols.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 64 citations in OpenAlex.
- Face mask sampling for the detection of microbes in expelled aerosols and the impact of airway clearance on microbial yield in children with cystic fibrosis: a feasibility trial.Journal of medical microbiology · 2026Article
- AveloMask, a novel breath aerosol collection kit for airborneJournal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Assessing Infectiousness and the Impact of Effective Treatment to Guide Isolation Recommendations for People With Pulmonary Tuberculosis.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2025Review
- Breath biopsy biomarkers: cell-free nucleic acids in exhaled breath condensate.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Whispers in the Wind: Face Mask Sampling for Mycobacterium tuberculosis Detection in Children With Pulmonary Tuberculosis.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Non-sputum-based samples and biomarkers for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: the hope to improve childhood and HIV-associated tuberculosis diagnosis.European journal of medical research · 2024Review
- Innovative COVID-19 Point-of-Care Diagnostics Suitable for Tuberculosis Diagnosis: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Mycobacterium tuberculosis cough aerosol culture status associates with host characteristics and inflammatory profiles.Nature communications · 2024Article
- NTCA Guidelines for Respiratory Isolation and Restrictions to Reduce Transmission of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Community Settings.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Article
- Blazing the trail for innovative tuberculosis diagnostics.Infection · 2024Review
- Tuberculosis Infectiousness is Associated with Distinct Clinical and Inflammatory Profiles.Research square · 2024Article
- A dose escalation study to evaluate the safety of an aerosol BCG infection in previously BCG-vaccinated healthy human UK adults.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Article
- Review
- Single-cell analysis reveals a weak macrophage subpopulation response to Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection.Cell reports · 2023Article
- A safer framework to evaluate characterization technologies of exhaled biologic materials using electrospun nanofibers.Nanoscale · 2023Article
- Face mask sampling (FMS) for tuberculosis shows lower diagnostic sensitivity than sputum sampling in Guinea.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2023Article
- Measuring indirect transmission-reducing effects in tuberculosis vaccine efficacy trials: why and how?The Lancet. Microbe · 2023Review
- Mask device as a new wearable sampler for breath analysis: what can we expect in the future?Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2023Article
- Updated considerations in the diagnosis and management of tuberculosis infection and disease: integrating the latest evidence-based strategies.Expert review of anti-infective therapy · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough tuberculosis is transmitted by the airborne route, direct information on the natural output of bacilli into air by source cases is very limited. We sought to address this through sampling of expelled aerosols in face masks that were subsequently analyzed for mycobacterial contamination.
methodsIn series 1, 17 smear microscopy positive patients wore standard surgical face masks once or twice for periods between 10 minutes and 5 hours; mycobacterial contamination was detected using a bacteriophage assay. In series 2, 19 patients with suspected tuberculosis were studied in Leicester UK and 10 patients with at least one positive smear were studied in The Gambia. These subjects wore one FFP30 mask modified to contain a gelatin filter for one hour; this was subsequently analyzed by the Xpert MTB/RIF system.
resultsIn series 1, the bacteriophage assay detected live mycobacteria in 11/17 patients with wearing times between 10 and 120 minutes. Variation was seen in mask positivity and the level of contamination detected in multiple samples from the same patient. Two patients had non-tuberculous mycobacterial infections. In series 2, 13/20 patients with pulmonary tuberculosis produced positive masks and 0/9 patients with extrapulmonary or non-tuberculous diagnoses were mask positive. Overall, 65% of patients with confirmed pulmonary mycobacterial infection gave positive masks and this included 3/6 patients who received diagnostic bronchoalveolar lavages.
conclusionMask sampling provides a simple means of assessing mycobacterial output in non-sputum expectorant. The approach shows potential for application to the study of airborne transmission and to diagnosis.
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.