ArticleEye (London, England)2023
The Collaborative Ocular Tuberculosis Study (COTS) calculator-a consensus-based decision tool for initiating antitubercular therapy in ocular tuberculosis.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ocular TB as the only manifestation of TB: diagnostic uncertainty and treatment thresholds.International ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Are the SUN Criteria Sufficient for Tubercular Uveitis? Findings From a Multinational Registry Study.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Observational
- Rare bilateral corneoscleral perforation secondary to ocular tuberculosis: a case report and clinical insights.Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection · 2025Article
- Article
- Infectious eye disease in the 21st century-an overview.Eye (London, England) · 2024Review
- Advanced drug delivery and therapeutic strategies for tuberculosis treatment.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2023Review
- Diagnosis and biomarkers for ocular tuberculosis: From the present into the future.Theranostics · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 9 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo introduce the Collaborative Ocular Tuberculosis Study (COTS) Calculator, an online clinical scoring system for initiating antitubercular therapy (ATT) in patients with ocular tuberculosis (TB).
methodThe COTS Calculator was derived from COTS Consensus (COTS CON) data, which has previously published consensus guidelines. Using a two-step Delphi method, 81 experts evaluated 486 clinical scenario-based questions, ranking their likelihood of initiating ATT in each specific scenario. Each scenario was a permutation of the results and/or availability of five following components-clinical phenotype, endemicity, two immunological (tuberculin skin test, interferon-γ release assay) and one radiological (chest X-Ray) test results-and a sixth component further stratifying three of the clinical phenotypes. The median scores and interquartile ranges (IQR) of each scenario were tabulated, representing the expert consensus on whether to initiate ATT in that scenario. The consensus table was encoded to develop the COTS Calculator.
resultsThe COTS Calculator can be accessed online at: https://www.oculartb.net/cots-calc . The attending physician can select the conditions present in the patient, which will generate a median score from 1 to 5. 114 out of 486 scenarios (24%) deliberated had a median score of 5 indicating expert consensus to initiate ATT.
conclusionThe COTS Calculator is an efficient, low-cost, evidence and experience-based clinical tool to guide ATT initiation. While it holds substantial promise in improving standard-of-care for ocular-TB patients, future validation studies can help to as certain its clinical utility and reliability.
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.