ArticleBMC infectious diseases2021
Tuberculosis diagnosis cascade in Blantyre, Malawi: a prospective cohort study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceived gender equitable norms and previous tuberculosis testing in Malawi: A secondary analysis of a cluster-based prevalence survey.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Missed opportunities for TB diagnostic testing among people living with HIV in Zimbabwe: Cross-sectional analysis of the Zimbabwe Population-based HIV Impact Assessment (ZIMPHIA) survey 2015-16.Journal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases · 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
- Missed opportunities for diagnosis and treatment in patients with TB symptoms: a systematic review.Public health action · 2022Review
- Understanding reasons for suboptimal tuberculosis screening in a low-resource setting: A mixed-methods study in the Kingdom of Lesotho.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTuberculosis (TB) control relies on early diagnosis and treatment. International guidelines recommend systematic TB screening at health facilities, but implementation is challenging. We investigated completion of recommended TB screening steps in Blantyre, Malawi.
methodsA prospective cohort recruited adult outpatients attending Bangwe primary clinic. Entry interviews were linked to exit interviews. The proportion of participants progressing through each step of the diagnostic pathway were estimated. Factors associated with request for sputum were investigated using multivariable logistic regression.
resultsOf 5442 clinic attendances 2397 (44%) had exit interviews. In clinically indicated participants (n = 445) 256 (57.5%) were asked about cough, 36 (8.1%) were asked for sputum, 21 (4.7%) gave sputum and 1 (0.2%) received same-day results. Significant associations with request for sputum were: any TB symptom (aOR:3.20, 95%CI:2.02-5.06), increasing age (aOR:1.02, 95%CI:1.01-1.04 per year) and for HIV-negative participants only, a history of previous TB (aOR:3.37, 95%CI:1.45-7.81). Numbers requiring sputum tests (26/day) outnumbered diagnostic capacity (8-12/day).
conclusionsPatients were lost at every stage of the TB care cascade, with same day sputum submission following all steps of the diagnosis cascade achieved in only 4.7% if clinically indicated. Infection control strategies should be implemented, with reporting on early steps of the TB care cascade formalised. High-throughput screening interventions, such as digital CXR, that can achieve same-day TB diagnosis are urgently needed to meet WHO End TB goals.
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.