ArticleBMC public health2020
Tuberculosis screening during the 2015 European refugee crisis.
Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Number needed to screen for TB in clinical, structural or occupational risk groups.The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Disease burden in a large cohort of asylum seekers and refugees in Germany.Journal of global health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of our study was to describe and evaluate management, performance and results of Tuberculosis (TB)-screening among refugees and asylum seekers in a rural area in Germany in 2015.
methodsRefugees or asylum seekers, staying in shared-accommodation are obligated to participate on screening chest X-ray (CXR) in order to screen for signs of potentially infectious pulmonary TB (German Protection against Infection Act and German Asylum Procedure Act). n = 705 individuals underwent screening chest X-ray (CXR) to detect pulmonary TB in September and October 2015 on site. One experienced radiologist interpreted and reported each CXR within 24 h after the enrollment in the screening program and results were sent to the local Public Health Department for potential further medical care. Image abnormalities suggestive for TB were defined according to established radiographic criteria such as pleural effusion, cavitation, consolidation, fibrous scarring or calcification. Only in case of TB-suggestive findings on CXR, further diagnostics were arranged (pulmonological examination, follow-up CXR, sputum culture, interferon-gamma release assay, bronchoscopy). Follow-up data was collected in collaboration with the local Public Health Department. Descriptive statistics were calculated using GraphPad Prism software.
resultsn = 637 CXR examinations (90%) did not show abnormal findings, n = 54 CXR (8%) showed incidental findings, and n = 14 CXR (2%) were suspicious for acute TB. Of these, n = 14 individuals, eight underwent further TB diagnostics. Active TB was confirmed in one individual (0.001% of the screening cohort).
conclusionsOur cohort reflects current immigrations statistics in Europe and illustrates an overall low TB prevalence amongst individuals entering Germany in 2015. However, our findings support the improvement of diagnostic algorithms.
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.