ArticleJournal of tuberculosis research2015
Quality of Sputum Specimen Samples Submitted for Culture and Drug Susceptibility Testing at the National Tuberculosis Reference Laboratory-Uganda, July-October 2013.
Article in Journal of tuberculosis research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the postal service for referral of specimen of drug resistance tuberculosis in Amhara region, Ethiopia; mixed method.African health sciences · 2021Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Setting: The Uganda National Tuberculosis Reference Laboratory (NTRL) in Kampala. Objective: The proportion of poor quality specimens received for drug susceptibility testing (DST) at the NTRL and factors contributing to poor specimen quality were assessed. Design: A cross-sectional study was conducted of sputum samples received at the NTRL from patients at high risk for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR TB) during July-October 2013. Demographic, clinical, and bacteriological data were abstracted from laboratory records. A poor quality sample failed to meet any one of four criteria: ≥3 milliliter (ml) volume, delivered within 72 hours, triple packaged, and non-salivary appearance. Results: Overall, 365 (64%) of 556 samples were of poor quality; 89 (16%) were not triple packaged, 44 (8%) were <3 mls, 164 (30%) were not delivered on time, and 215 (39%) were salivary in appearance. Poor quality specimens were more likely to be collected during the eighth month of TB treatment (OR = 2.5, CI = 1.2 - 5.1), from the East or Northeast zones (OR = 2.2, CI = 1.1 - 4.8), and from patients who previously defaulted from treatment (OR = 1.9, CI = 1.1 - 3.2). Conclusion: The majority of sputum samples had poor quality. Additional efforts are needed to improve quality of samples collected at the end of treatment, from East and Northeast zones, and from patients who had previously defaulted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35911866PMC9335348What 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.