ArticleBMC pediatrics2022
Reproducibility of a protocol for standardized reading of chest X-rays of children household contact of patients with tuberculosis.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effectiveness of preventive tuberculosis treatment in children.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- The role of chest X-ray in tuberculosis detection for high school students in China: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- POCUS Examination of the Mediastinum in Children: A Simplified and Standardized Protocol for Pulmonary Tuberculosis.POCUS journal · 2025Article
- Adherence to treatment for tuberculosis infection in children using a comprehensive care strategy: a prospective cohort study with a historical control group.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2025Article
- Diagnostic performance of chest radiography for pediatric tuberculosis across high- and low-burden settings.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe interpretation of the chest radiograph may vary because it depends on the reader and due to the non-specificity of findings in tuberculosis (TB). We aim to assess the reproducibility of a standardized chest radiograph reading protocol in contacts of patients with pulmonary TB under the 5 years of age.
methodsDescriptive, cross-sectional study with children under the age of five, household contacts of patients with confirmed pulmonary TB from Medellín, Bello and Itagüí (Colombia) between Jan-01-2015 and May-31-2016. Standardized reading protocol: two radiologists, blinded independent reading, use of template (Dr. Andronikou design) in case of disagreement a third reading was performed. Kappa coefficient for intra and inter observer agreement, and prevalence ratio were estimated of sociodemographic characteristics, TB exposure and interpretation of chest X-ray.
resultsFrom 278 children, standardized reading found 255 (91.7%) normal X-rays, 10 (3.6%) consistent with TB, and 13 (4.7%) other alterations. Global agreement was 91.3% (Kappa = 0.51). Inter-observer agreement between readers 1-2 was 90.0% (Kappa = 0.59) and 1-3 93.2% (Kappa = 0.59). Intra-observer agreement for reader 1 was 95.5% (Kappa = 0.86), 2 84.0% (Kappa = 0.51), and 3 94.7% (Kappa = 0.68). Greater inter-observer disagreement was between readers 1-2 for soft tissue density suggestive of adenopathy (4.6%), airspace opacification (1.17%) and pleural effusion (0.58%); between readers 1-3 for soft tissue density suggestive of adenopathy (4.2%), opacification of airspace (2.5%) and cavities (0.8%).
conclusionsChest radiographs are an affordable tool that contributes to the diagnosis of TB, so having a standardized reading protocol showed good agreement and improves the reproducibility of radiograph interpretation.
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.