ArticleThe Journal of infectious diseases2025
Mind the Clinic-Community Gap: Re-evaluation of Test Performance and False Positive Results in Community-Wide Tuberculosis Screening.
Article in The Journal of infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of community tuberculosis screening in South Africa.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Molecular Testing on Saliva and Oral Swabs for Pulmonary Tuberculosis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026Article
- Article
- Long-term risk of tuberculosis among individuals with Xpert Ultra trace screening results in Uganda: a longitudinal follow-up study.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Authors' Response to "TB Prevalence in People Tested is a Strong Predictor of Xpert Specificity in Community and Risk Group Screening".The Journal of infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Whom tuberculosis tests detect and why it matters: implications for diagnostic algorithms.The Lancet. Microbe · 2025Review
- Do no harm - re-evaluating the risks of overtreatment in community-wide tuberculosis screening.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- The potential impact, cost and cost-effectiveness of tuberculosis interventions - a modelling exercise.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Potential impact, costs, and benefits of population-wide screening interventions for tuberculosis in Viet Nam: A mathematical modelling study.PLOS global public health · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Community-wide screening for bacteriologically confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis may reduce the tuberculosis burden, although concerns of overtreatment remain because of false positive diagnoses due to subpar specificity of current bacteriological tests for screening. Our review and data analysis show that clinic-based test specificity estimates of Xpert against culture underestimate performance in communities, for both Xpert MTB/RIF(99.8% for community vs 98.4% for clinic) and Xpert Ultra (99.4% vs 95.6%, respectively), reducing the presumed false positivity of sputum Xpert, using culture as the reference, by 86.8% and 85.4%, respectively, compared with clinic-based specificity estimates. These findings support large-scale evaluation of community-wide screening for tuberculosis.
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.