ArticlePLOS global public health2025
The Accuracy of the Uganda National Tuberculosis and Leprosy Program diagnostic algorithm and the World Health Organisation treatment decision algorithms for childhood tuberculosis: A retrospective analysis.
Article in PLOS global public 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.
- Multicohort assessment of plasma metabolic signatures of tuberculosis disease in children: a retrospective cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Integrated treatment-decision algorithms for childhood TB: modelling diagnostic performance and costs.IJTLD open · 2026Article
- Exploring non-sputum biosignatures for tuberculosis triage and diagnosis in children living with HIV.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2025Review
- Multicohort assessment of plasma metabolic signatures of tuberculosis disease in children.Research square · 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diagnosing childhood pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) is a challenge. This led the Uganda National Tuberculosis and Leprosy Program (NTLP) to develop a clinical treatment decision algorithm (TDA) for children. However, there is limited data on its accuracy, and how it compares to new World Health Organization (WHO) TB TDAs for children. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of the 2017 Uganda NTLP diagnostic algorithm with the 2022 WHO TDAs for TB among children. We analyzed four years of clinical data from children <15 years old in Kampala, Uganda. Children were classified as per National Institutes of Health (NIH) consensus definitions (Confirmed, Unconfirmed or Unlikely TB). We applied the 2017 Uganda NTLP and 2022 WHO algorithms (A with chest x-ray [CXR], B without CXR) to make a decision to treat for TB or not, and calculated the sensitivity, specificity and predictive values in reference to Confirmed vs. Unlikely TB, as well as a microbiological and composite reference standard. Of the 699 children included in this analysis, 64% (451/699) were under 5 years, 53% (373/669) were male, 12% (85/699) were Xpert Ultra positive, 11% (74/669) were HIV positive and 6% had severe acute malnutrition (SAM). The Uganda NTLP algorithm had a sensitivity of 97.9% (95% CI: 96.4-99.4) and specificity of 25.9% (95% CI: 21.2-30.7). If CXR was considered unavailable, sensitivity was 97.9% (95% CI: 96.4-99.4) and specificity 28.1% (95% CI: 23.2-33.0). In comparison, WHO TDAs had similar sensitivity to the Uganda NTLP, but algorithm A was more specific (32.2%, 95% CI: 26.9-37.5) and algorithm B was less specific (15.4%, 95% CI: 11.3-19.5). The WHO TDAs had better specificity than the NTLP algorithm with CXR, and worse specificity without CXR. Further optimization of the algorithms is needed to improve specificity and reduce over-treatment of TB in children.
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.