ArticleJournal of global infectious diseases
Are Treatment Outcomes of Patients with Tuberculosis Detected by Active Case Finding Different From Those Detected by Passive Case Finding?
Article in Journal of global infectious diseases. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Review: missed tuberculosis cases in India: a systematic analysis of diagnostic, treatment, and reporting gaps.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Barriers to engagement in the care cascade for tuberculosis disease in India: A systematic review of quantitative studies.PLoS medicine · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the catastrophic costs incurred by tuberculosis patients.Scientific reports · 2022Pooled it
- Tuberculosis screening costs and cost-effectiveness in high-risk groups: a systematic review.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Global status of policies and practices for systematic TB screening in high-burden countries.IJTLD open · 2025Article
- A mixed-methods study on impact of active case finding on pulmonary tuberculosis treatment outcomes in India.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2024Article
- The Epidemiological Importance of Subclinical Tuberculosis. A Critical Reappraisal.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2021Article
- Framework for planning and monitoring active TB case finding interventions to meet the global targets in the COVID-19 era and beyond: South-East Asia perspective.PLOS global public health · 2021Review
- Case finding strategies under National Tuberculosis Elimination Programme (NTEP).The Indian journal of tuberculosis · 2020Review
- Treatment outcomes of tuberculosis patients detected by active case finding under the Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme during 2018 in Haridwar district of Uttarakhand.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020Article
- Active Case Finding in Tuberculosis: Need for a Cautious Approach.Journal of global infectious diseasesArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextIndia has adopted active case finding (ACF) as an additional strategy to find its missing tuberculosis (TB) cases since 2017. Treatment outcomes of patients identified through ACF may be similar or different from those detected through routine passive case finding (PCF); currently, there are limited studies on this in India.
aimThe aim of this study was to assess differences in treatment outcomes of patients detected through ACF and PCF under the national TB program. STUDY
designA study was conducted in six TB units of Haridwar district where ACF campaigns were conducted in 2017-2018.
methodsData from patients detected by ACF (
resultsOf 72 patients detected by ACF, only 54 (75%) were initiated on treatment. A high proportion of initial loss to follow-up (25% vs. 0%) and delay in treatment initiation (4 days vs. 0 days) was observed in ACF patients as compared to PCF. The proportion of unsuccessful treatment outcome was 33% (
conclusionHigh initial loss to follow-up, delay in treatment initiation, and poor treatment outcome among ACF patients are a major concern. The study results call for active follow-up after diagnosis and close monitoring during treatment for patients detected by ACF.
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.