SynthesisNursing & health sciences2025
A Systematic Review of the Accuracy of Machine Learning Models for Diagnosing Pulmonary Tuberculosis: Implications for Nursing Practice and Implementation.
Synthesis in Nursing & health sciences, 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 Evaluation of Pretrained Generative Models for Augmenting Small Health Data: Comparative Modeling Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Contributions of Artificial Intelligence to Decision Making in Nursing: A Scoping Review.Nursing & health sciences · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review evaluates the application of machine learning (ML) models for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis and their potential to inform nursing practice and implementation strategies. Studies published between 2019 and 2024 were systematically identified through searches in Scopus, PubMed, Medline, ScienceDirect, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Clinical Key, Ovid, EMBASE, and Web of Science. The review adhered to PRISMA guidelines, with rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria applied. A total of 734 records were retrieved, with 18 duplicates removed, leaving 716 articles for screening. Of these, 699 did not meet the inclusion criteria. Full-text review of 17 articles excluded five studies, resulting in 12 studies included in the final analysis. The synthesis revealed five key diagnostic features commonly utilized in ML models: chest x-rays, computed tomography scans, sputum smear images, human exhaled breath, and personal information. Among 13 identified ML algorithms, convolutional neural networks were the most frequently employed due to their superior performance in analyzing imaging data. These findings emphasize the transformative potential of ML technologies to enhance early tuberculosis diagnosis, optimize nursing practice, and improve clinical 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.