ArticleCentral Asian journal of global health2015
External Quality Assessment of Sputum Smear Microscopy in Tuberculosis Laboratories in Sughd, Tajikistan.
Article in Central Asian journal of global health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of randomized blinded rechecking program on the performance of the AFB Microscopy Laboratory Network in Uganda: a decadal retrospective study.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Article
- Epidemiology of tuberculosis in Papua New Guinea: analysis of case notification and treatment-outcome data, 2008-2016.Western Pacific surveillance and response journal : WPSARReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTajikistan has a laboratory network with three levels of tuberculosis (TB) laboratories. The external quality assessment (EQA) of sputum smear microscopy was implemented in 2007. The objective of this study was to evaluate the EQA system and identify potential performance improvement strategies in TB microscopic laboratories in Sughd, Tajikistan.
methodsThis is a cross-sectional study based on retrospective record review and secondary data analyses on Acid-Fast Bacilli (AFB) microscopy data and EQA reading results collected between the first quarter of 2011 and the fourth quarter of 2013. Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine the overview of microscopy laboratories activities, EQA results, and laboratory performance.
resultOf the 123,874 smears examined between 2011 and 2013, 11,522 (9.30%) were re-checked by the EQA system. The population TB screening rate rose from 0.46% in 2011 to 0.57% in 2013, and the case positivity rate decreased from 6.98% to 4.80%. The regional EQA results showed a reduction in high false-positive, high false-negative, and low false-negative errors. False-positive errors had decreased from 0.13% in 2011 to 0.07% in 2013, and false-negative errors from 0.91% in 2011 to 0.15% in 2013. Regional sensitivity of smear microscopy, when compared to re-checking controller, increased from 88.2% in 2011 to 97.2% in 2013. The regional specificity level remained relatively stable at above 99%.
conclusionOur study found that a decreasing trend of case positivity rate from 2011 to 2013 in Sughd, though the overall laboratory workload was on the rise. In addition, EQA results showed an overall error reduction and an improved sensitivity of smear microscopy in the region. The overview of microscopic laboratory activities and the actual evaluation of the EQA system on sputum smear microscopy complement each other in providing a better picture on the progress of TB laboratory strengthening. We recommend similar approaches to be adapted by future evaluations on TB microscopic laboratories, particularly among countries of high burden. Interactive training and feedback loops are crucial to improving TB surveillance in Tajikistan.
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.