Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28625793›Full record

SynthesisThe Lancet. Global health2017

Comparison of sputum collection methods for tuberculosis diagnosis: a systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis.

Sumona Datta, Lena Shah, Robert H Gilman, Carlton A Evans

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudySystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Lancet. Global health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT07420881 (Start 4 All - DARE-TB), which is not on this map. Cited by 49 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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.

NCT07420881 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Start 4 All - DARE-TB

TypeinterventionalSponsorLiverpool School of Tropical MedicineRan2026 to 2027Enrolled60,000ConditionsTB - TuberculosisArmsNear point of care (NPOC) NAATs, Low-complexity nucleic acid amplification tests (LC-NAATs), LC-NAAT using pooled testing, Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) Chest X-ray (CXR-AI), Culture (reference standard)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Sumona DattaInnovation For Health and Development, Laboratory of Research and Development, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru; Infectious Diseases and Immunity, Imperial College London and Wellcome Trust Imperial College Centre for Global Health Research, London, UK; Innovacion Por la Salud Y el Desarrollo, Asociación Benéfica Prisma, Lima, Peru. Electronic address: sumona.datta@ifhad.org.
Lena ShahDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Robert H GilmanDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Carlton A EvansInnovation For Health and Development, Laboratory of Research and Development, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru; Infectious Diseases and Immunity, Imperial College London and Wellcome Trust Imperial College Centre for Global Health Research, London, UK; Innovacion Por la Salud Y el Desarrollo, Asociación Benéfica Prisma, Lima, Peru.
Johns Hopkins University · USMcGill University · CAPrisma · PEUniversidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia · PE

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K007467/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe performance of laboratory tests to diagnose pulmonary tuberculosis is dependent on the quality of the sputum sample tested. The relative merits of sputum collection methods to improve tuberculosis diagnosis are poorly characterised. We therefore aimed to investigate the effects of sputum collection methods on tuberculosis diagnosis.

methodsWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether non-invasive sputum collection methods in people aged at least 12 years improve the diagnostic performance of laboratory testing for pulmonary tuberculosis. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, ProQuest, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Embase up to April 14, 2017, to identify relevant experimental, case-control, or cohort studies. We analysed data by pairwise meta-analyses with a random-effects model and by network meta-analysis. All diagnostic performance data were calculated at the sputum-sample level, except where authors only reported data at the individual patient-level. Heterogeneity was assessed, with potential causes identified by logistic meta-regression.

findingsWe identified 23 eligible studies published between 1959 and 2017, involving 8967 participants who provided 19 252 sputum samples. Brief, on-demand spot sputum collection was the main reference standard. Pooled sputum collection increased tuberculosis diagnosis by microscopy (odds ratio [OR] 1·6, 95% CI 1·3-1·9, p<0·0001) or culture (1·7, 1·2-2·4, p=0·01). Providing instructions to the patient before sputum collection, during observed collection, or together with physiotherapy assistance increased diagnostic performance by microscopy (OR 1·6, 95% CI 1·3-2·0, p<0·0001). Collecting early morning sputum did not significantly increase diagnostic performance of microscopy (OR 1·5, 95% CI 0·9-2·6, p=0·2) or culture (1·4, 0·9-2·4, p=0·2). Network meta-analysis confirmed these findings, and revealed that both pooled and instructed spot sputum collections were similarly effective techniques for increasing the diagnostic performance of microscopy.

interpretationTuberculosis diagnoses were substantially increased by either pooled collection or by providing instruction on how to produce a sputum sample taken at any time of the day. Both interventions had a similar effect to that reported for the introduction of new, expensive laboratory tests, and therefore warrant further exploration in the drive to end the global tuberculosis epidemic.

fundingWellcome Trust, Joint Global Health Trials consortium, Innovation For Health and Development, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Indexed as

HumansMicroscopyMycobacterium tuberculosisOdds RatioPhysical Therapy ModalitiesSensitivity and SpecificitySpecimen HandlingSputumTime FactorsTuberculosis, Pulmonary

Identifiers

PMID28625793
PMCPMC5567202
OpenAlexW2625450956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.