ReviewEClinicalMedicine2025
The effectiveness of community-wide screening for pulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review.
Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An optimal processing method for recovery of tuberculosis in the tongue swab using theMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- The association between the diabetes mellitus duration and the risk of pulmonary tuberculosis in the elderly: evidence from a community-based study in China.Journal of global health · 2026Article
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
This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of community-wide screening for pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) in high-burden areas by analysing randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The review focused on interventions offering TB screening to entire communities, comparing them to standard care or alternative approaches. The main outcome assessed was microbiologically confirmed TB diagnoses, including rates and prevalence. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, WHO Global Index Medicus, Web of Science, and trial registries up to 27 May 2024, without language restrictions. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were done in duplicate. Results were not pooled. Certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. PROSPERO: CRD42023453356. We included six cluster-RCTs after screening 2460 titles/abstracts and 86 full-text articles. The evidence for symptom screening was very uncertain. We found that sputum smear microscopy screening may result in little to no difference in the prevalence of culture-confirmed TB (n = 962,655, RR 1.09; 95% CI: 0.86-1.38, 1 RCT, low certainty evidence). Community-wide nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) screening probably reduces the prevalence of NAAT-positive TB (n = 105,108, RR 0.56; 95% CI: 0.40-0.78, 1 RCT, moderate certainty evidence). Community-wide screening for pulmonary TB may reduce TB prevalence if done annually with an accurate screening test and high coverage.
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.