Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33147240›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

The impact of chest radiography and Xpert MTB/RIF testing among household contacts in Chennai, India.

Ramya Ananthakrishnan, Rajeswaran Thiagesan, Sheela Auguesteen, Nalini Karunakaran, Lavanya Jayabal, Jagadeesan M, Robert Stevens, Andrew Codlin, Jacob Creswell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ramya AnanthakrishnanREACH - Resource Group for Education and Advocacy for Community Health, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.ORCID 0000-0003-3739-9521
Rajeswaran ThiagesanREACH - Resource Group for Education and Advocacy for Community Health, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Sheela AuguesteenREACH - Resource Group for Education and Advocacy for Community Health, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Nalini KarunakaranREACH - Resource Group for Education and Advocacy for Community Health, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Lavanya JayabalGCC RNTCP - Greater Chennai Corporation Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Jagadeesan MGCC RNTCP - Greater Chennai Corporation Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Robert StevensIndependent Consultant, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Andrew CodlinStop TB Partnership, TB REACH, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jacob CreswellStop TB Partnership, TB REACH, Geneva, Switzerland.
Government of Tamil Nadu · INNational Institute of Research in Tuberculosis · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tuberculosis prevalence surveys have demonstrated the benefit of screening with chest x-ray (CXR) and sensitive diagnostic tests compared to symptoms and smear microscopy. However, in programmatic practice there is little evidence on the yield of different algorithms. We implemented contact tracing in Chennai, India for adult sputum-positive TB patients registered from January 2015 to March 2016. Patients with symptoms or abnormal X-ray findings further underwent testing using Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) and smear microscopy. A retrospective cohort study was done to summarize the key findings. We verbally screened 5553 contacts for symptoms, CXR through private sector collaboration, Xpert, and smear microscopy. Overall, 1312 (23.6%) contacts screened positive. CXR alone identified 531 (40.5%) of them, 679 (51.8%) were symptom-positive only, while 102 (7.8%) were positive on both the symptom and CXR screen. Overall, 35 bacteriologically positive cases were identified (0.7%). A standard approach of symptoms screening followed by microscopy identified only 9 (25.7%) of the total number of bacteriologically positive cases, whereas the combination of a CRX screening followed by microscopy identified 13 (37.1%) of the cases. The algorithm of symptoms screening followed by Xpert testing, detected 20 cases, whereas the combination of symptoms and CXR followed by Xpert increased this number to 35 (75% increase compared to symptoms and Xpert). Optimal use of more sensitive screening tests, better diagnostic tests, and novel private sector engagement can improve diagnostic yield in a programmatic setting.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAntibiotics, AntitubercularContact TracingDrug Resistance, BacterialFemaleHumansIndiaMaleMass ScreeningMicroscopyMiddle AgedMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesMycobacterium tuberculosisRadiographyReagent Kits, DiagnosticAntibiotics, AntitubercularReagent Kits, DiagnosticRifampin

Identifiers

PMID33147240
PMCPMC7641361
OpenAlexW3095329776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.