ArticlePloS one2025
The incremental value of tuberculosis detecting African giant pouched rats over Smear microscopy and Xpert MTB/RIF for Tanzanian TB detection.
Article in PloS one, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrior studies that used Anti-Persoonsmijnen Ontmijnende Product Ontwikkeling (APOPO)-trained African giant pouched rats reported an annual average of 40% increase in sputum-smear-positive tuberculosis (TB) detection. Sputum-smear microscopy (smear) is being replaced by Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert)-based diagnostic algorithms in many countries. We evaluated the incremental values of rat-based case detection over smear and Xpert.
methodsFrom January to December 2023, sputum samples were collected from presumptive TB patients at 69 health facilities that use Xpert or smear-based diagnostic algorithms. An average of five rats were used at APOPO to re-evaluate the second sample from Xpert-negative patients and the smear-negative sample. Concentrated smears and Ziehl-Neelsen staining were used to confirm samples that were rat-positive (samples indicated positive by ≥ 1 rat). We analyzed the increase in case detection (incremental yield) by the rats over smear and Xpert and compared the rise against Mycobacterium bacillary load using the Chi-square test.
resultsA total of 43,153 samples from 34,565 patients were collected and re-evaluated by rats. There were 6,717 bacteriologically confirmed TB cases; 4,541 (68%) of these cases were detected at health facilities (3,239 from Xpert and 1,302 from smear sites); the remaining 2,176 (32%) were found by trained rats, representing 48% (2,176/4,541) overall incremental value. Of which, 65% (1,409/2,176) and 35% (767/2,176) were among Xpert and smear-negative patients, respectively. The Incremental yield by rats at Xpert facilities was 44% (1,409/3,239), while it was 59% (767/1,302) at smear facilities, Odds Ratio, OR = 0.74, 95% confidence interval, CI:0.66-0.82. The rats were 47% more likely to identify TB among Acid Fast Bacilli smear 1 + or scanty from Xpert-negative samples than smear-negative [91% (1,276/1,409) versus 87% (665/767), OR = 1.47, 95% CI:1.12-1.94]. The difference between children and adults, however, was not substantial, [69% (68/98) versus 67% (1,138/1,701), OR = 1.12, 95% CI:0.72-1.74].
conclusionsOur finding indicated that trained rats reasonably added benefit over DOT TB case findings. According to our data, switching from smear to Xpert sites lowered the added value by more than a quarter, even though the Xpert sites were likely to benefit more case finding among TB patients with lower bacillary loads.
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.