Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30031378›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2018

Investigating the impact of TB case-detection strategies and the consequences of false positive diagnosis through mathematical modelling.

Marek Lalli, Matthew Hamilton, Carel Pretorius, Debora Pedrazzoli, Richard G White, Rein M G J Houben

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Determining the value of TB active case-finding: current evidence and methodological considerations.The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Marek LalliDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Keppel Street, WC1E 7HT, London, UK. Marek.lalli@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0191-8249
Matthew HamiltonAvenir Health, Glastonbury, USA.
Carel PretoriusAvenir Health, Glastonbury, USA.
Debora PedrazzoliDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Keppel Street, WC1E 7HT, London, UK.
Richard G WhiteDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Keppel Street, WC1E 7HT, London, UK.
Rein M G J HoubenDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Keppel Street, WC1E 7HT, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/P002404/1United States Agency for International Development GHN-A-00-08-00004-00
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasing case notifications is one of the top programmatic priorities of National TB Control Programmes (NTPs). To find more cases, NTPs often need to consider expanding TB case-detection activities to populations with increasingly low prevalence of disease. Together with low-specificity diagnostic algorithms, these strategies can lead to an increasingly high number of false positive diagnoses, which has important adverse consequences.

methodsWe apply TIME, a widely-used country-level model, to quantify the expected impact of different case-finding strategies under two scenarios. In the first scenario, we compare the impact of implementing two different diagnostic algorithms (higher sensitivity only versus higher sensitivity and specificity) to reach programmatic screening targets. In the second scenario, we examine the impact of expanding coverage to a population with a lower prevalence of disease. Finally, we explore the implications of modelling without taking into consideration the screening of healthy individuals. Outcomes considered were changes in notifications, the ratio of additional false positive to true positive diagnoses, the positive predictive value (PPV), and incidence.

resultsIn scenario 1, algorithm A of prolonged cough and GeneXpert yielded fewer additional notifications compared to algorithm B of any symptom and smear microscopy (n = 4.0 K vs 13.8 K), relative to baseline between 2017 and 2025. However, algorithm A resulted in an increase in PPV, averting 2.4 K false positive notifications thus resulting in a more efficient impact on incidence. Scenario 2 demonstrated an absolute decrease of 11% in the PPV as intensified case finding activities expanded into low-prevalence populations without improving diagnostic accuracy, yielding an additional 23 K false positive diagnoses for an additional 1.3 K true positive diagnoses between 2017 and 2025. Modelling the second scenario without taking into account screening amongst healthy individuals overestimated the impact on cases averted by a factor of 6.

conclusionOur findings show that total notifications can be a misleading indicator for TB programme performance, and should be interpreted carefully. When evaluating potential case-finding strategies, NTPs should consider the specificity of diagnostic algorithms and the risk of increasing false-positive diagnoses. Similarly, modelling the impact of case-finding strategies without taking into account potential adverse consequences can overestimate impact and lead to poor strategic decision-making.

Indexed as

False Positive ReactionsModels, StatisticalTuberculosisAlgorithmsHumansMass ScreeningPrevalenceSensitivity and SpecificityFalse positive diagnosisMathematical modellingScreeningTuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID30031378
PMCPMC6054844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.