ArticleJournal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999)2019
Brief Report: Yield and Efficiency of Intensified Tuberculosis Case-Finding Algorithms in 2 High-Risk HIV Subgroups in Uganda.
Article in Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04557176 (TB Screening Improves Preventive Therapy Uptake Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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.
TB Screening Improves Preventive Therapy Uptake Trial
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Screening performance of C-reactive protein for active pulmonary tuberculosis in HIV-positive patients: A systematic review with a meta-analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Pooled it
- Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra assays for screening for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults, irrespective of signs or symptoms.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Sex differences in systematic screening for tuberculosis among antiretroviral therapy naïve people with HIV in Kampala, Uganda.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Acute phase proteins and IP-10 in plasma for tuberculosis diagnosis.Frontiers in tuberculosis · 2023Article
- 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTuberculosis (TB) risk varies among different HIV subgroups, potentially impacting intensified case finding (ICF) performance. We evaluated the performance of the current ICF algorithm [symptom screening, followed by Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) testing] in 2 HIV subgroups and evaluated whether ICF performance could be improved if TB screening was based on C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations.
methodsWe enrolled consecutive adults with CD4 counts ≤350 cells/µL initiating antiretroviral therapy and performed symptom screening, CRP testing using a low-cost point-of-care (POC) assay, and collected sputum for Xpert testing. We compared the yield and efficiency of the current ICF algorithm to POC CRP-based ICF among patients new to HIV care and patients engaged in care.
resultsOf 1794 patients, 126/1315 (10%) new patients and 21/479 (4%) engaged patients had Xpert-positive TB. The current ICF algorithm detected ≥98% of all TB cases in both subgroups but required ≥85% of all patients to undergo Xpert testing. POC CRP-based ICF halved the proportion of patients in both subgroups requiring Xpert testing relative to the current ICF algorithm and had lower yield among patients engaged in care [81% vs. 100%, difference -19% (95% confidence interval: -41 to 3)]. Among patients new to care, POC CRP-based ICF had similar yield as the current ICF algorithm [93% vs. 98%, difference -6% (95% confidence interval: -11 to 0)].
conclusionsAmong patients new to care, POC CRP-based screening can improve ICF efficiency without compromising ICF yield, whereas symptom-based screening may be necessary to maximize ICF yield among patients engaged in care.
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.