ArticleBMJ open2021
Treatment outcomes of patients with drug-sensitive tuberculosis under community-based versus facility-based directly observed treatment, short course strategy in Southwest Ethiopia: a prospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment outcomes and risk factors for unfavorable results among older asymptomatic pulmonary tuberculosis patients in China, 2021-2024.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Determinants of an unfavorable treatment outcome among tuberculosis patients in the Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The magnitude of health care seeking delay and associated factors for tuberculosis suggestive symptoms in Sidama Region Ethiopia: Community-based cross-sectional study.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Total delay and associated factors among tuberculosis patients in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare tuberculosis (TB) treatment outcomes and associated factors among patients attending community-based versus facility-based directly observed treatment, short course (DOTS).
designA prospective cohort study.
settingThe study was conducted in Southwest Ethiopia. There were seven hospitals (five primary, one general and one specialised), 120 health centres and 494 health posts.
participantsA total of 1161 individuals consented to participate in the study (387 patients under community-based DOTS (CB-DOTS) and 774 patients under facility-based DOTS (FB-DOTS)). Individuals who could not respond to the questions, mentally or critically ill patients, and those less than 15 years old, were excluded from the study. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: TB treatment outcomes were compared among patients under CB-DOTS versus FB-DOTS. Risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) and confidence interval (CI) were calculated among the study groups. In addition, χ
resultsPatients who opted for CB-DOTS were more likely to be cured by 12% than those who opted for FB-DOTS (RR=1.12, 95% CI=0.96 to 1.30). Patients under CB-DOTS had a lesser risk of death (RR=0.93, 95% CI=0.49 to 1.77) and a lower risk of treatment failure (RR=0.86, 95% CI=0.22 to 3.30) than those under FB-DOTS. Furthermore, patients who opted for CB-DOTS were less likely to have a positive sputum smear result at the end of the treatment period (p=0.042) compared with their counterparts.
conclusionThe study showed that CB-DOTS is more effective than FB-DOTS in terms of improving cure rate and sputum conversion rate, as well as lowering treatment failure rate. Our findings show the need for scaling up and a further decentralisation of CB-DOTS approach to improve access to TB treatment service for the rural community.
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.