ArticleScientific reports2025
Diagnostic accuracy of screening and diagnostic tests used in a state-wide tuberculosis prevalence survey in India.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prevalence surveys and active case findings for tuberculosis (TB) typically use symptoms and Chest X-ray for screening and a diagnostic test for microbiological confirmation. We report the performance of screening and diagnostic tests from a state-wide prevalence survey in India. We screened 130,932 individuals using chest X-ray (CXR) and symptom checklist. Sputum samples were obtained from eligible participants and subjected to Xpert/MTB RIF, smear microscopy, and culture. Cough over two weeks had higher sensitivity (41.6%, 95% CI: 31.6-52.1) and lower specificity (72.8%, 95% CI: 72.1-73.5) among all the symptoms. The sensitivity and specificity of abnormal CXR were 86.4% (95% CI:77.9-92.5) and 42.12% (95% CI, 41.3-42.8), respectively. Xpert/MTB RIF in the reference laboratory had the highest sensitivity (96.55% 95% CI: 88.0-99.5), and smear microscopy had the highest specificity (99.7% 95% CI: 99.6-99.8). The combined sensitivity and specificity of Xpert MTB/RIF along symptom screening and CXR were 97.9% (95% CI:92.6-99.7) and 4.9% (95% CI:4.67-5.33), respectively. The mobile van Xpert MTB/RIF was found to be highly specific (99.3%). We recommend a diagnostic algorithm consisting of symptom screening and CXR followed by WHO-recommended rapid molecular assays (mWRD) for future prevalence surveys and active case finding.
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.