ArticleBMJ open2024
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of community-based directly observed treatment (DOT) versus health facility-based DOT of tuberculosis in Africa: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTuberculosis (TB) remains a significant global health challenge, especially prevalent in the WHO African region. The WHO's End TB Strategy emphasises effective treatment approaches such as directly observed therapy (DOT), yet the optimal implementation of DOT, whether through health facility-based (HF DOT) or community-based (CB DOT) approaches, remains uncertain.
objectiveTo conduct a systematic comparison of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Community-Based Directly Observed Treatment (CB DOT) versus Health Facility-Based Directly Observed Treatment (HF DOT) for tuberculosis (TB) treatment in African settings.
methodsWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. We will search PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Library for articles published up to 30 March 2023, without date restrictions. Eligible studies must be full economic evaluations conducted in African countries, comparing CB DOT to HF DOT regarding treatment outcomes and costs. Exclusion criteria include non-English, non-peer-reviewed or studies lacking caregiver involvement in CB DOT, health facility-based DOT comparison, direct comparability between CB DOT and HF DOT, significant selection bias or non-economic evaluations. Data extraction will be performed independently by reviewers, and meta-analyses will use STATA software. To pool the data, a random-effect model will be applied, and quality assessment of the studies will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as the study will use previously published articles available publicly. Findings will be presented at international and national conferences and published in open-access, peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023443260.
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.