SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2019
Contact tracing strategies in household and congregate environments to identify cases of tuberculosis in low- and moderate-incidence populations.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Contact tracing strategies in household and congregate environments to identify cases of tuberculosis in low- and moderate-incidence populations.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Genotypic drug resistance and transmission clusters of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates among Ethiopian returnees from Saudi Arabia.PloS one · 2025Article
- Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis Case-Finding Strategies: Scoping Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Outcomes of TB contact tracing and predictors of success: a 10-year retrospective cohort analysis in Birmingham, UK.The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTuberculosis is an infectious bacterial disease that is spread via respiratory droplets from infected individuals to susceptible contacts. To eliminate this disease from low- and medium-incidence settings, people who are most likely to be infected (contacts) must be identified. Recently, study authors have examined alternate approaches to contact tracing methods that demonstrate improved detection and prioritization of contacts. The comparative benefit of these methods has not been established.
objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of novel methods of contact tracing versus current standard of care to identify latent and active cases in low- to moderate-incidence settings. SEARCH
methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Web of Science, and CINAHL up to 15 July 2019. We also searched for clinical trials and examined reference lists and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of contact tracing strategies that included alternate approaches (other than standard practice). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed identified articles for eligibility and quality using prespecified criteria. MAIN
resultsNo trials met the inclusion criteria of this review. Several study authors described an alternate method for examining contacts and performing social network analysis but did not compare this with the current contact tracing approach. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThis Cochrane Review highlights the lack of research in support of the current contact tracing method and the need for RCTs to compare new methods such as social network analysis to improve contact tracing processes.
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.