ArticlePloS one2022
Selection bias in multidrug-resistant tuberculosis cohort studies assessing sputum culture conversion.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Effectiveness of Bedaquiline Use beyond Six Months in Patients with Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2023Trial
- Low body mass index as a predictor of sputum culture conversion and treatment outcomes among patients receiving treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Lesotho.Global health action · 2024Article
- Safety and Effectiveness of 3 Novel All-Oral Shortened Regimens for Rifampicin- or Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis in Kazakhstan.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Article
- Sputum culture reversion in longer treatments with bedaquiline, delamanid, and repurposed drugs for drug-resistant tuberculosis.Nature communications · 2024Observational
- Comparative effectiveness of adding delamanid to a multidrug-resistant tuberculosis regimen comprised of three drugs likely to be effective.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConversion of sputum culture from positive to negative for M. tuberculosis is a key indicator of treatment response. An initial positive culture is a pre-requisite to observe conversion. Consequently, patients with a missing or negative initial culture are excluded from analyses of conversion outcomes. To identify the initial, or "baseline" culture, researchers must define a sample collection interval. An interval extending past treatment initiation can increase sample size but may introduce selection bias because patients without a positive pre-treatment culture must survive and remain in care to have a culture in the post-treatment interval.
methodsWe used simulated data and data from the endTB observational cohort to investigate the potential for bias when extending baseline culture intervals past treatment initiation. We evaluated bias in the proportion with six-month conversion.
resultsIn simulation studies, the potential for bias depended on the proportion of patients missing a pre-treatment culture, proportion with conversion, proportion culture positive at treatment initiation, and proportion of patients missing a pre-treatment culture who would have been observed to be culture positive, had they had a culture. In observational data, the maximum potential for bias when reporting the proportion with conversion reached five percentage points in some sites.
conclusionExtending the allowable baseline interval past treatment initiation may introduce selection bias. If investigators choose to extend the baseline collection interval past treatment initiation, the proportion missing a pre-treatment culture and the number of deaths and losses to follow up during the post-treatment allowable interval should be clearly enumerated.
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.