ArticlePloS one2021
Effectiveness and trend forecasting of tuberculosis diagnosis after the introduction of GeneXpert in a city in south-eastern Brazil.
Article in PloS one, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fifteen years of tuberculosis and HIV diagnostic services in Brazil: disruption, regional disparities, and recovery before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic.IJID regions · 2025Article
- Article
- Risk-prone territories for spreading tuberculosis, temporal trends and their determinants in a high burden city from São Paulo State, Brazil.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- A Sensitive and Rapid Wastewater Test for SARS-COV-2 and Its Use for the Early Detection of a Cluster of Cases in a Remote Community.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2022Article
- Machine learning in the loop for tuberculosis diagnosis support.Frontiers in 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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the effectiveness of a rapid molecular test for the detection of tuberculosis (TB) and to predict the rates of disease in a municipality of Brazil where TB is endemic.
methodsAn ecological study was carried out in Ribeirão Preto-SP on a population of TB cases notified between 2006 and 2017. Monthly TB incidence rates and the average monthly percentage change (AMPC) were calculated. In order to identify changes in the series, the breakpoint technique was performed; the rates were modelled and predictions of the incidence of TB until 2025 were made.
resultsAMPC showed a fall of 0.69% per month in TB and human immunodeficiency virus (TB-HIV) co-infection, a fall of 0.01% per month in general and lung TB and a fall of 0.33% per month in extrapulmonary TB. With the breakpoint technique, general and pulmonary TB changed in structure in late 2007, and extrapulmonary TB and TB-HIV co-infection changed in structure after 2014, which is considered the cut-off point. The IMA(3) models were adjusted for general and pulmonary TB and TB-HIV co-infection, and the AR(5) models for extrapulmonary TB, and predictions were performed.
conclusionsThe rapid molecular test for TB is the method currently recommended by the WHO for the diagnosis of the disease and its main advantage is to provide faster, more accurate results and to already check for drug resistance. It is necessary that professionals encourage the use of this technology in order to optimize the diagnosis so that the treatment begins as quickly as possible and in an effective way. Only by uniting professionals from all areas with health policies aimed at early case identification and rapid treatment initiation it is possible to break the chain of TB transmission so that its rates decrease and the goals proposed by the WHO are achieved.
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.