ReviewCureus2022
Use of Isoniazid Monotherapy in Comparison to Rifamycin-Based Regimen for the Treatment of Patients With Latent Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and safety of the available preventive tuberculosis treatment regimens for children and adolescents: systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Pooled it
- Isoniazid use, effectiveness, and safety for treatment of latent tuberculosis infection: a systematic review.Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical · 2024Pooled it
- Microbial Natural Products Targeting theMicroorganisms · 2026Review
- Clinical-Epidemiological Characteristics and Outcomes of Latent Tuberculosis Treatment at a Tertiary Center in Central-West Brazil from 2017 to 2019.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tuberculosis (TB) is a common infectious disease that is present all around the world. This insidious disease needs drastic measures for its eradication. One of the actions contributing to it is the timely diagnosis and offering suitable treatment options for latent tuberculosis patients. In this review, we will discuss and compare the variety of options available for this purpose. We searched PubMed/Medline, Cochrane library, Google Scholar, and Science Direct to find articles regarding the effectiveness, safety, and completion of any of the five regimens available for latent tuberculosis infection. These options are the most classic and standard nine months of isoniazid given daily, which is now more commonly given as six months course, three months of daily isoniazid and rifampin, three months of weekly isoniazid and rifapentine, and four months of daily rifampin. We looked into free full-text studies published from 2011 to 2021 available in English language and human studies. After applying inclusion/exclusion criteria and removing duplicates and screening, 34 articles were shortlisted for quality assessment check, after which we finalized nine studies. Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool was used for quality check of randomized control trials, New-Castle Ottawa tool for observational studies, and assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool for systematic reviews. Efficacy was checked by tracking down the new cases of TB in the sample population that took the treatment for latent tuberculosis infection. New rifamycin-based regimens were almost equal in effectiveness to isoniazid regimens. The side effect profile is different for both regimens, but short-duration courses tend to have a higher chance of completion.
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.