ArticleBMJ open2021
Stool specimen for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in adults: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stool specimen for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in adults: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2023Pooled it
- Optimising pulmonary tuberculosis diagnosis in adults: diagnostic usefulness of stool gene xpert alone and in combination with sputum gene xpert at a referral centre in Northeastern Nigeria.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Performance of stool-based Xpert MTB/RIF assay in the diagnosis of presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis in adults unable to expectorate sputum.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Lessons Learned from Early Implementation and Scale-up of Stool-Based Xpert Testing to Diagnose Tuberculosis in Children.Emerging infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Wastewater-based surveillance as a tool for public health action: SARS-CoV-2 and beyond.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2024Review
- Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra Assay Using Stool: an Effective Solution for Bacilli Identification from Adult Pulmonary Tuberculosis Suspects without Expectorated Sputum.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Article
- Drug Resistance and Molecular Characteristics ofJournal of personalized medicine · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTuberculosis (TB) continues to be a significant health burden, most commonly affecting the lungs and referred to as pulmonary TB (PTB). Diagnostic techniques of PTB primarily rely on expectorated sputum samples. However, the diagnostic yields are often hindered due to insufficient volume and quality of the sputum specimens. Moreover, some individuals are unable to provide sputum samples due to scanty sputum production or difficulty in coughing up and require an invasive procedure to obtain a respiratory sample, such as bronchoscopic or gastric aspiration. Thus, challenges in the acquisition of respiratory specimens warrant an alternate specimen. Therefore, this systematic review aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a stool specimen for the diagnosis of PTB in adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science and Cochrane database from inception to April 2021 using a comprehensive search strategy. Two reviewers will independently perform screening, data extraction and quality assessment. The risk of bias assessment and applicability of results of eligible studies will be performed using the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Bivariate random-effects models will be performed to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio along with 95% CI of stool specimen for each reported diagnostic method against any of the reference standard test (ie, mycobacterial culture or smear microscopy or Xpert assay using respiratory specimens). Heterogeneity between studies will be assessed by I ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results will be disseminated through publishing in a peer-reviewed medical journal and public presentations in relevant national and international conferences. As this is a systematic review of publicly available data, ethics approval is not required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021245203.
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.