ArticleGlobal health action2024
Article in Global health action, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Review: missed tuberculosis cases in India: a systematic analysis of diagnostic, treatment, and reporting gaps.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Assessing the integration of social protection into infectious disease policies: a multi-country analysis of TB, HIV, and malaria strategies in Sub-Saharan Africa.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Strategic Leverage Points in Implementing India's Nikshay Poshan Yojana for Tuberculosis Patients: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Qualitative study of acceptability, benefits, and feasibility of a food-based intervention among participants and stakeholders of the RATIONS trial.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrection.2024
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background
objectivesTo determine the proportion of PwTB receiving atleast one NPY instalment and pattern of utilisation; to ascertain factors associated with NPY non-receipt and association of NPY receipt with TB treatment outcome.
methodsIn our cross-sectional study, we used multi-stage sampling to select PwTB whose treatment outcome was declared between May 2022 and February 2023. A cluster-adjusted, generalized linear model was used to identify factors associated with the non-receipt of NPY and determine association between NPY receipt and TB treatment outcome.
resultsAmong 3201 PwTB, 2888 (92.7%; 95% CI 89.8%, 94.8%) had received at least one NPY instalment, and 1903 (64.2%; 95% CI 58.9%, 69.2%) self-reported receipt of benefit. The median (IQR) time to receipt of first instalment was 105 (60,174) days. Non-receipt was significantly higher among PwTB from states with low TB score (aPR = 2.34; 95%CI 1.51, 3.62), who do not have bank account (aPR = 2.48; 95%CI 1.93, 3.19) and with unknown/missing diabetic status (aPR = 1.69; 95%CI 1.11, 2.55). Unfavorable treatment outcomes were associated with non-receipt of NPY (aPR 4.93; 95%CI 3.61,6.75) after adjusting for potential confounders.
conclusionMajority of the PwTB received atleast one NPY instalment, but they experience significant delays. Most of the recipients utilised NPY for nutrition. Longitudinal follow-up studies are required to study the impact of NPY on treatment outcomes.
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.