ArticlePublic health action2019
Targeted active screening for tuberculosis in Zimbabwe: are field digital chest X-ray ratings reliable?
Article in Public health action, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Subclinical tuberculosis linkage to care and completion of treatment following community-based screening in rural South Africa.BMC global and public health · 2024Article
- TB prevalence in Zimbabwe: a national cross-sectional survey, 2014.The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
settingFifteen purposively selected districts in Zimbabwe in which targeted active screening for tuberculosis (Tas4TB) was conducted among TB high-risk groups (HRGs). There were 230 patients started on TB treatment on the basis of chest X-ray (CXR) results without corresponding bacteriological confirmation.
objectivesTo determine 1) the percentage of agreements in digital CXR ratings by medical officers against final ratings by radiologist(s), 2) inter-rater agreement in CXR ratings between medical officers and radiologists, and 3) number (and proportion) of patients belonging to HRGs who were over-treated during Tas4TB.
designThis was a cross-sectional study using programme data.
resultsA total of 168 patients had their CXRs rated by two independent radiologists. Discordances among the radiologists were resolved by a third index radiologist, who provided the final rating. κ scores were 0.01 (field ratings vs. Radiologist A); 0.02 (field ratings vs. Radiologist B); 0.74 (Radiologists A vs. B). The percentage agreement for field and final radiologist rating was 70% (95%CI 64-78). Around 29% (95%CI 23-36) of the patients were potentially over-treated during Tas4TB.
conclusionOver a quarter of patients with presumptive TB are potentially over-treated during Tas4TB. Over-treatment is highest among those with previous contact with TB patients. Trainings of radiographers and medical officers may improve CXR ratings.
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.