ArticleBMC research notes2018
Misdiagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis and associated factors in peripheral laboratories: a retrospective study, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Article in BMC research notes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality of tuberculosis diagnostic laboratories in Ethiopia assessed through External Quality Assessment components: a systematic review.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Estimating the number of incorrect tuberculosis diagnoses in low- and middle-income countries.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparison of different bacteriological testing strategies and factors for bacteriological confirmation among pulmonary TB patients: a retrospective study in Tianjin, China, 2017-2018.BMC infectious diseases · 2020Article
- A Low-Cost Humidity Control System to Protect Microscopes in a Tropical Climate.Annals of global health · 2020Article
- Article
- Quality of Same-Day Sputum Smears Microscopy and Presumptive Tuberculosis Patients Drop-out at Health Facilities of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2020Article
- Article
- Sputum Smear Positive Pulmonary Tuberculosis Diagnostic Dropout Rate in Public Health Facilities, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Pulmonary medicine · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSputum smear microscopy reading errors are likely to result in failure to detect persons with infectious TB. This study was intended to review misdiagnosis of pulmonary TB and associated factors in peripheral laboratories.
resultsDuring the study period 1033 (10.5%) sputum smear positive and 8783 (89.5%) smear negative slides were reported by peripheral laboratories. The slides were re-read by the central referral laboratories (CRLs) as the reference standard reading. Of 1033 positive slides reported by peripheral laboratories, 25 (2.4%) were false positive. Out of 8783 smear negative slides reported by peripheral laboratories, 35 (0.4%) were false negative. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of peripheral laboratories were 96.64, 99.72, 97.58, and 99.61% respectively. The peripheral laboratories and CRLs have an observed agreement (Po) of 0.9939. Of 135 peripheral laboratories, 93 (68.9%) read negative and positive slides correctly, 49 (36.3%) did not have lens cleaning tissue papers, 11 (8.1%) lacked frosted slides, and 14 (10.4%) had shortage of reagents. As conclusions, the peripheral laboratories and CRLs had high agreement for sputum smear microscopy reading. However, a few TB cases were misdiagnosed despite having the disease; these individuals might continue to spread the infection in the community.
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.