Observational studyPloS one2017
Estimating the impact of tuberculosis anatomical classification on treatment outcomes: A patient and surveillance perspective analysis.
Observational study in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disseminated Tuberculosis Mimicking Metastatic Cancer During Ruxolitinib Therapy for Polycythemia Vera: A Case Report and Literature Review.The American journal of case reports · 2026Review
- Article
- Intestinal tuberculosis and inflammatory bowel disease; the usual challenging differential diagnoses: A case report.Radiology case reports · 2023Article
- Colonic tuberculosis presenting as intestinal subocclusion in a patient with neuroendocrine tumor: a case report.AME case reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTuberculosis anatomical classification is inconsistent in the literature, which limits current tuberculosis knowledge and control. We aimed to evaluate whether tuberculosis classification impacts on treatment outcomes at patient and aggregate level.
methodsWe analyzed adults from São Paulo State, Brazil with newly diagnosed tuberculosis from 2010-2013. We used an extended clinical classification of tuberculosis, categorizing cases as pulmonary, pulmonary and extrapulmonary, extrapulmonary and miliary/disseminated. Our primary outcome was unsuccessful outcome of treatment. To investigate the reported treatment outcome at the aggregate level, we sampled 500 different "countries" from the dataset and compared the impact of pulmonary and extrapulmonary classifications on the reported treatment success.
resultsOf 62,178 patients, 49,999 (80.4%) were pulmonary, 9,026 (14.5%) extrapulmonary, 1,651 (2.7%) pulmonary-extrapulmonary and 1,502 (2.4%) miliary/disseminated. Pulmonary-extrapulmonary cases had similar unsuccessful outcome of treatment compared with pulmonary (adjusted-OR 1.00, 95%CI, 0.88-1.13, p = 0.941), while extrapulmonary were associated with better (adjusted-OR 0.65, 95%CI, 0.60-0.71, p<0.001) and miliary/disseminated with worse outcomes (adjusted-OR 1.51, 95%CI, 1.33-1.71, p<0.001). We found that 60 (12%) countries would report a difference ≥10% in treatment success depending on whether they reported all clinical forms together (current WHO recommendation) or pulmonary forms alone, overestimating the treatment success of pulmonary forms.
conclusionsThe expanded anatomical classification of tuberculosis was strongly associated with treatment outcomes at the patient level. Remarkably, pulmonary with concomitant extrapulmonary forms had similar treatment outcomes compared with pulmonary forms after adjustment for potential confounders. At the aggregate level, reporting treatment success for all clinical forms together might hide differences in progress between pulmonary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis control.
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.