ReviewAfrican health sciences2014
Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of screening immigrants schemes for tuberculosis (TB) on arrival from high TB endemic countries to low TB prevalent countries.
Review in African health sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of interventions for reducing TB incidence in countries with low TB incidence: a systematic review of reviews.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2019Pooled it
- Population-based active screening strategy contributes to the prevention and control of tuberculosis.Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2022Article
- Essential healthcare services provided to conflict-affected internally displaced populations in low and middle-income countries: A systematic review.Health promotion perspectives · 2020Review
- Pathogens, prejudice, and politics: the role of the global health community in the European refugee crisis.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2016Article
- Ebola and other issues in the health sector in Africa.African health sciences · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImmigrants to developed countries are a major source of TB. Therefore amongst strategies adopted for TB control in developed countries include; 1) Screening immigrants at ports of entry referred to as "Port of Arrival Screening" (PoA) and 2) Passive screening (PS) for TB which means screening immigrants through general practices, hospitals, chest-clinics and emergency departments. Evidence of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of these strategies is not consistent.
objectiveEvaluate efficiency of active PoA TB screening for immigrants from TB endemic-regions compared with Passive Screening of immigrant-populations from TB endemic-regions.
methodsMajor electronic-databases and reference lists of relevant studies were searched. Experts of immigrants' TB screening were contacted for additional studies published or unpublished. Systematic search of major databases identified only retrospective cohort-studies. Their qualities were assessed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodological checklist for comparative cohort-studies.
resultsSystematic electronic searches identified 1443 citations. Of these 74 studies were retrieved for evaluation against the review's inclusion/exclusion criteria (see study inclusion/exclusion criteria). Four studies met the inclusion criteria (figure 2) which were low in the evidence hierarchy of primary effectiveness studies and had heterogeneities between them. Thus descriptive data-synthesis was performed. Proportionately PoA screening had the lowest percentage of receipt of tuberculin skin test (TST) and the highest percentage of non-attendance for TST reading (table 2). Active PoA screening reduced infectiousness by 34% compared to 30% by passive screening and new entrants screened at PoA were 80% less likely to be hospitalised Odds ratio (OR) = 0.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1 - 0.2). [Table: see text]. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: One cost effectiveness analysis was found that compared the costs of; active PoA screening, general practice screening and homeless screening groups. The cost of detecting a case of TB were; £1.26, £13.17 and £96.36 for PS, homeless screening and active PoA screening respectively. The cost of preventing a case of TB were; £6.32, £23.00 and £10.00 for PS, homeless screening and PoA screening respectively, showing there is little difference between the different strategies.
conclusionActive PoA screening is worth doing with significant benefits including early identification of risk groups with possible timely treatment/chemoprophylaxis intervention, prevention of transmission by significantly reducing infectiousness with subsequent avoidance of hospitalisation in active PoA screening group.
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.