ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2023
Prior Screening for Latent Tuberculosis Among Patients Diagnosed With Tuberculosis Disease: Missed Opportunities?
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of prediction algorithm to identify tuberculosis in two large California health systems.Nature communications · 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
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: California has the largest number of tuberculosis (TB) disease cases in the United States. This study in a large California health system assessed missed opportunities for latent tuberculosis (LTBI) screening among patients with TB disease. Methods: Kaiser Permanente Southern California patients who were ≥18 years old with membership for ≥24 months during the study period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2019 were included. Prior LTBI test (tuberculin skin test or interferon-γ release assay) or diagnosis code prior to TB disease diagnosis was assessed among patients with observed TB disease (confirmed by polymerase chain reaction and/or culture). In the absence of current treatment practices, more patients screened for LTBI may have developed TB disease. We estimated hypothetical TB disease cases prevented by multiplying LTBI progression rates by the number of LTBI-positive patients prescribed treatment. Results: A total of 1289 patients with observed TB disease were identified; 148 patients were LTBI positive and 84 were LTBI negative. Patients not prescreened for LTBI made up 82.0% of observed TB disease cases (1057/1289). Adding the hypothetical maximum estimate for prevented cases decreased the percentage of patients who were not prescreened for LTBI to 61.7% [1057/(1289 + 424)]. Conclusions: One-fifth of patients were screened for LTBI prior to their active TB diagnosis. Assuming the upper bound of cases prevented through current screening, almost 62% of TB disease patients were never screened for LTBI. Future work to elucidate gaps in LTBI screening practices and to identify opportunities to improve screening guidelines is needed.
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.