ArticleBMJ open2020
Evaluation of the performance of clinical predictors in estimating the probability of pulmonary tuberculosis among smear-negative cases in Northern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the performance of the predictors in estimating the probability of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) when all versus only significant variables are combined into a decision model (1) among all clinical suspects and (2) among smear-negative cases based on the results of culture tests.
designA cross-sectional study.
settingTwo public referral hospitals in Tigray, Ethiopia.
participantsA total of 426 consecutive adult patients admitted to the hospitals with clinical suspicion of PTB were screened by sputum smear microscopy and chest radiograph (chest X-ray (CXR)) in accordance with the Ethiopian guidelines of the National Tuberculosis and Leprosy Program. Discontinuation of antituberculosis therapy in the past 3 months, unproductive cough, HIV positivity and unwillingness to give written informed consent were the basis of exclusion from the study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: A total of 354 patients were included in the final analysis, while 72 patients were excluded because culture tests were not done.
resultsThe strongest predictive variables of culture-positive PTB among patients with clinical suspicion were a positive smear test (OR 172; 95% CI 23.23 to 1273.54) and having CXR lesions compatible with PTB (OR 10.401; 95% CI 5.862 to 18.454). The regression model had a good predictive performance for identifying culture-positive PTB among patients with clinical suspicion (area under the curve (AUC) 0.84), but it was rather poor in patients with a negative smear result (AUC 0.64). Combining all the predictors in the model compared with only the independent significant variables did not really improve its performance to identify culture-positive (AUC 0.84-0.87) and culture-negative (AUC 0.64-0.69) PTB.
conclusionsOur finding suggests that predictive models based on clinical variables will not be useful to discriminate patients with culture-negative PTB from patients with culture-positive PTB among patients with smear-negative cases.
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.