SynthesisThe Lancet. Infectious diseases2020
Utility of broad-spectrum antibiotics for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors associated with tuberculosis treatment initiation among bacteriologically negative individuals evaluated for tuberculosis: An individual patient data meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Treatment for radiographically active, sputum culture-negative pulmonary tuberculosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Development and validation of a risk prediction model for pulmonary tuberculosis in presumptive tuberculosis patients in Tigray, northern Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Clinically diagnosed tuberculosis and mortality in high burden settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Post-tuberculosis lung disease: towards prevention, diagnosis, and care.The Lancet. Respiratory medicine · 2025Review
- Factors associated with tuberculosis treatment initiation among bacteriologically negative individuals evaluated for tuberculosis: an individual patient data meta-analysis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Bacterial pathogens in Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra-negative sputum samples of patients with presumptive tuberculosis in a high TB burden setting: a 16S rRNA analysis.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Impact of active case-finding for tuberculosis on case-notifications in Blantyre, Malawi: A community-based cluster-randomised trial (SCALE).PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Prevalence of bacteriologically-confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis in urban Blantyre, Malawi 2019-20: Substantial decline compared to 2013-14 national survey.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Mind the gap - Managing tuberculosis across the disease spectrum.EBioMedicine · 2022Review
- The uncertainty of tuberculosis diagnosis.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSuboptimal diagnostics for pulmonary tuberculosis drive the use of the so-called trial of antibiotics, a course of broad-spectrum antibiotics without activity against Mycobacterium tuberculosis that is given to patients who are mycobacteriology negative but symptomatic, with the aim of distinguishing pulmonary tuberculosis from bacterial lower respiratory tract infection. The underlying assumption-that patients with lower respiratory tract infection will improve, whereas those with pulmonary tuberculosis will not-has an unclear evidence base for such a widely used intervention (at least 26·5 million courses are prescribed per year). We aimed to collate available evidence on the diagnostic performance of the trial of antibiotics.
methodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Global Health databases for studies published up to March 15, 2019, that investigated the sensitivity and specificity of the trial of antibiotics against mycobacteriology tests in adults (≥15 years) with tuberculosis symptoms. We used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess the risk of bias. We estimated pooled values for sensitivity and specificity of trial of antibiotics (as the index text) versus mycobacteriology tests (as the reference standard) using random-effects bivariate modelling, and we used the I
findingsOf the 9410 articles identified by our search, eight studies were eligible for inclusion. The studies were from seven countries in Africa, South America, and Asia, and involved 2786 participants. Six studies used mycobacterial culture as the reference standard, and six used penicillins for the trial of antibiotics. The treatment duration, number of antimicrobial courses, and definition of what constituted response to treatment varied substantially between studies. The pooled sensitivity (67%, 95% CI 42-85) and specificity (73%, 58-85) of the trial of antibiotics versus mycobacteriology tests were below internationally defined minimum performance profiles for tuberculosis diagnostics and had substantial heterogeneity (I
interpretationCurrent policy and practice regarding the trial of antibiotics appear inappropriate, given the weak evidence base, poor diagnostic performance, potential contribution to the global antimicrobial resistance crisis, and adverse individual and public health consequences from the misclassification of tuberculosis status. Antibiotic strategies during tuberculosis investigations should instead optimise clinical outcomes, ideally guided by clinical trials in both inpatient and outpatient groups.
fundingHelse Nord RHF, Wellcome Trust, and the UK Commonwealth Scholarship Commission.
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.