ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2018
Universal Genotyping for Tuberculosis Prevention Programs: a 5-Year Comparison with On-Request Genotyping.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of casual contact in drug-resistant tuberculosis transmission: a molecular epidemiology study.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2026Article
- Genetic Diversity and Molecular Epidemiology ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Genotyped cluster investigations versus standard contact tracing: comparative impact on latent tuberculosis infection cascade of care in a low-incidence region.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Article
- Immunoinformatics and Vaccine Development: An Overview.ImmunoTargets and therapy · 2020Review
- Characterization of Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains in Beijing, China: drug susceptibility phenotypes and Beijing genotype family transmission.BMC infectious diseases · 2018Article
- TB Transmission: Closing the Gaps.EBioMedicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prospective universal genotyping of tuberculosis (TB) isolates is used by many laboratories to detect clusters of cases and inform contact investigations. Prior to universal genotyping, most TB prevention programs genotyped isolates on request only, relying on requests from public health professionals whose knowledge of a patient's clinical, demographic, and epidemiological characteristics suggested potential transmission. To justify the switch from on-request to universal genotyping-particularly in the public health domain, with its limited resources and competing priorities-it is important to demonstrate the additional benefit provided by a universal genotyping program. We compared the clustering patterns revealed by retrospective 24-locus mycobacterial interspersed repetitive unit-variable-number tandem repeat genotyping of all culture-positive isolates over a 5-year period to the patterns previously established by our genotyping-on-request program in the low-incidence setting of British Columbia, Canada. We found that 23.8% of isolates were requested during the study period, and while requested isolates had increased odds of belonging to a genotype cluster (adjusted odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 3.3), only 54.6% clustered with the requested comparator strain. Universal genotyping revealed 94 clusters ranging in size from 2 to 53 isolates (mean = 5) and involving 432 individuals. On-request genotyping missed 54 (57.4%) of these clusters and 130 (30.1%) clustered individuals. Our results underscore that TB patient networks are complex, with unrecognized linkages between patients, and a prospective province-wide universal genotyping program provides an informative, bias-free tool to explore transmission to a degree not possible with on-request genotyping.
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.