ArticleCureus2018
Same-day Smear Method Compared with Conventional Sputum Method for Diagnosing Pulmonary Tuberculosis.
Article in Cureus, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Review: missed tuberculosis cases in India: a systematic analysis of diagnostic, treatment, and reporting gaps.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Patient compliance with the two-day Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme's (RNTCP) diagnostic process for pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) is poor in high case load settings, with a high dropout rate observed on the second day. Hence, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended the same-day (spot-spot) sputum test for high-burden TB countries to help reduce diagnostic dropouts. This study addresses the paucity of comparative data on the accuracy and agreement of the two methods, while the WHO recommendations are yet to be implemented by the RNTCP. The objective of this study was to assess and compare the smear positivity rates of the same-day and conventional sputum examination methods for the diagnosis of sputum smear-positive pulmonary TB. Methodology We conducted a cross-sectional, analytical, nonrandomized comparative study on presumptive TB patients attending a designated microscopy center in a tertiary care hospital. Three sputum samples were collected: a first spot, a second spot (one hour after the first spot), and an early morning sample taken on the following day. The first and the second spot samples taken one hour apart were included for microscopic analysis. The conventional (i.e., two-day sputum) method used the first spot and the early morning sputum sample taken on the following day. A positive result from any one of the three sputum samples was recorded as a proven TB case. We then compared the results of the smear microscopy obtained by the two methods. Results The same-day sputum microscopic method diagnosed 181 out of a total 189 TB cases. The conventional method diagnosed 188 cases. Thus, same-day sputum microscopy missed eight cases, whereas the conventional method missed only one case. The sputum positivity rate was 18.8% in the same-day sputum microscopy samples and 19.5% in the conventional method samples. The incremental yield of the second sputum sample in the same-day (second spot) sample was five cases (2.7%). In the conventional method (early morning sample), the yield was 12 cases (6.3%). The sensitivity of the same-day microscopy and conventional methods were 95.76% and 99.5%, respectively. Conclusion The conventional method of diagnosing sputum-positive pulmonary TB had more sensitivity compared to the same-day sputum microscopy approach.
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.