ArticleJournal of global health2025
Age- and sex-specific care cascades to detect gaps in the care of children with tuberculosis in Bangladesh: a cohort study.
Article in Journal of global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Age and sex differences in paediatric tuberculosis care for child contacts.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Identifying pediatric extrapulmonary tuberculosis through an active screening program: Findings and programmatic implications from Bangladesh.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of treatment outcomes and associated risk factors in children with TB in Bangladesh.Public health action · 2025Article
- Hospitalization for tuberculosis in children and adolescents: clinical, epidemiological characteristics and post-treatment sequelae at a referral center in Brazil.The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious DiseasesObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Programmatic interventions to increase the detection of children with tuberculosis (TB) are rarely evaluated to understand age- and sex-specific completion rates. We applied modified TB screening and treatment cascade frameworks to assess indicators of effective implementation by age and sex of a TB screening program for children (zero to 14 years) in Bangladesh. Methods: We implemented an intensified screening program for paediatric TB detection in 119 health care facilities (2018-21). We followed systematic verbal screening by referral for full evaluation for children who reported symptoms or contact history with a patient with TB. Further, we linked children to treatment if diagnosed and followed for outcomes. We calculated the percentage of children, by age and sex, progressing through each step of the care cascade and compared the frequency of step completion by sex using χ Results: In total, we screened 552 182 males and 461 419 females for TB. 2.8% of males and 2.6% of females screened positive (P < 0.001). 74.2% of males and 73.9% of females underwent appropriate evaluation (P = 0.560). 10.3% of males and 11.5% of females were diagnosed with TB (P = 0.008). 100% of children initiated treatment, and 97.6% of males and 97.1% of females achieved a successful treatment outcome (P = 0.428). The percent of children screening positive on verbal screen, who were clinically evaluated for TB, and who were diagnosed with TB generally increased with age, with some variability throughout (ranges: 1.2-9.1%, 59.8-88.5%, 6.5-21.9%, respectively). Conclusions: The largest gap observed for both sexes and among all ages was children who were not appropriately evaluated for TB despite screening positive. In our research, we highlight the value of identifying gaps in paediatric TB care to inform innovative, age- and sex-tailored interventions to improve future care in children.
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.