SynthesisLung2025
Diagnostic Accuracy of Breath Tests to Detect Pulmonary Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Lung, 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.
- Advanced Technologies for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis Using Exhaled Breath Samples: A Systematic Scoping Review.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2026Article
- AveloMask, a novel breath aerosol collection kit for airborneJournal of clinical microbiology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTuberculosis (TB) is a highly contagious infection and one of the world's leading causes of death from a single infectious agent. Currently, TB diagnosis can be established via mycobacterial cultures, Acid Fast Bacilli smear and molecular studies. In the ever-evolving landscape of medical advancements, breath tests have shown considerable promise. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of breath tests to detect pulmonary TB in various populations.
methodsThis systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched Embase and PubMed to identify observational studies published from database inception to May 2024. All observational studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of breath tests to detect pulmonary tuberculosis were included. Authors independently reviewed each article for eligibility and risk-of-bias. A senior reviewer was consulted for discrepancies.
resultsThe pooled sensitivity for the breath test in diagnosing TB was 0.85 (95% CI 0.78-0.90) whilst the pooled specificity was 0.83 (95% CI 0.72-0.90), although heterogeneity was high. Sub-group analysis by low/lower-middle World Bank income group status, high proportion of TB in test population, or use of a separate breath sampling kit did not reduce the heterogeneity. Publication bias was absent.
conclusionOur study found that pooled sensitivity and specificity of the breath tests in diagnosing pulmonary TB was high. Future research efforts can be directed towards investigating the diagnostic accuracy of electronic noses and gas chromatography combined with mass spectrometry, whilst improving standardisation and reproducibility of breath test techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39841224What 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.