Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34408058›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Stool specimen for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in adults: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Saima Sultana, Adnan Ansar, K M Saif-Ur-Rahman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Drug Resistance and Molecular Characteristics ofJournal of personalized medicine · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Saima SultanaProjahnmo Research Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh saima.sultana.jhu@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-6129-918X
Adnan AnsarSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6052-8657
K M Saif-Ur-RahmanPublic Health and Health Systems, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine Faculty of Medicine, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-8702-7094
Biomedical Research Foundation · BDInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research · BDLa Trobe University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Antibiotics, AntitubercularMycobacterium tuberculosisTuberculosis, PulmonaryAdultHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicRifampinSensitivity and SpecificitySystematic Reviews as TopicAntibiotics, AntitubercularRifampinbacteriologydiagnostic microbiologymolecular diagnosticstuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID34408058
PMCPMC8375732
OpenAlexW3194080912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.