ArticleEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2021
Tuberculosis contact investigation following the stone-in-the-pond principle in the Netherlands - Did adjusted guidelines improve efficiency?
Article in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Effectiveness of Contact Tracing to Reduce Transmission of Infectious Diseases During Epidemic or Pandemic Response: Rapid Systematic Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Pooled it
- Tuberculosis contact investigation: an evaluation of yield and guideline adherence, Upper Bavaria, Germany, 2018 to 2022.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025Article
- TB yields from expanded contact tracing investigations.Public health action · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundIn low tuberculosis (TB) incidence countries, contact investigation (CI) requires not missing contacts with TB infection or disease without unnecessarily evaluating non-infected contacts.AimWe assessed whether updated guidelines for the stone-in-the-pond principle and their promotion improved CI practices.MethodsThis retrospective study used surveillance data to compare CI outcomes before (2011-2013) and after (2014-2016) the guideline update and promotion. Using negative binomial regression and logistic regression models, we compared the number of contacts invited for CI per index patient, the number of CI scaled-up according to the stone-in-the-pond principle, the TB and latent TB infection (LTBI) testing coverage, and yield.ResultsPre and post update, 1,703 and 1,489 index patients were reported, 27,187 and 21,056 contacts were eligible for CI, 86% and 89% were tested for TB, and 0.70% and 0.73% were identified with active TB, respectively. Post update, the number of casual contacts invited per index patient decreased statistically significantly (RR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79-0.98), TB testing coverage increased (OR = 1.4; 95% CI: 1.2-1.7), and TB yield increased (OR = 2.0; 95% CI: 1.0-3.9). The total LTBI yield increased from 8.8% to 9.8%, with statistically significant increases for casual (OR = 1.2; 95% CI: 1.0-1.5) and community contacts (OR = 2.0; 95% CI: 1.6-3.2). The proportion of CIs appropriately scaled-up to community contacts increased statistically significantly (RR = 1.8; 95% CI: 1.3-2.6).ConclusionThis study shows that promoting evidence-based CI guidelines strengthen the efficiency of CIs without jeopardising effectiveness. These findings support CI is an effective TB elimination intervention.
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.