ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Genotyped cluster investigations versus standard contact tracing: comparative impact on latent tuberculosis infection cascade of care in a low-incidence region.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCluster and contact investigations aim to identify and treat individuals with tuberculosis (TB) and latent TB infection (LTBI). Although genotyped cluster investigations may be superior to contact investigations in generating additional epidemiological links, this may not necessarily translate into reducing infections. Here, we investigated the impact of genotyped cluster investigations compared to standard contact investigations on the LTBI care cascade in a low incidence setting.
methodsA matched case-control study nested within a cohort of 6,921 TB cases from Florida (2009-2023) was conducted. Cases (n = 670) underwent genotyped cluster investigations, while controls (n = 670) received standard contact investigations and were matched 1:1 by age. The LTBI care cascade outcomes were compared using Pearson's chi-square tests.
resultsOf the 5,767 identified contacts, 3,230 (56.0%) were associated with the case group, while 2,537 (44.0%) were identified in the control group. A higher proportion of contacts were evaluated in the control group (85.5%) than in the case group (81.5%, p < 0.001). While the proportion of evaluated contacts diagnosed with LTBI did not significantly differ between the groups (case: 20.4%, control: 21.5%, p = 0.088), a higher percentage of LTBI-diagnosed contacts initiated TB preventive treatment (TPT) in the control group (95.9%) than the case group (92.9%, p = 0.029). TPT completion rates were similar, with 65.2% in the case group and 66.3% in the control group (p = 0.055). TB patients in the case group were more likely to be males, U.S.-born, Asians, residents of long-term care or correctional facilities, with past year histories of alcohol use, homelessness, and drug use.
conclusionDespite the demographic and epidemiological differences between cases and controls, cluster investigations identified more contacts, with no significant difference in contacts diagnosed with LTBI, but were less effective than standard contact investigations in evaluating contacts, initiating LTBI treatment, and ensuring completion.
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.