ArticleIJTLD open2025
Antenatal screening for TB disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in IJTLD open, 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.
- Programmatic Results of Integrating Systematic TB Screening Across Diverse Outpatient Health System Entry Points in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2026Article
- Tuberculosis Screening During Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of Policies, Practices, and Perceptions Across Global Settings.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis household contact screening and management by community healthcare workers in Mongolia: a prospective implementation study.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- Congenital tuberculosis in preterm infants in a high-burden setting in southwest China: a single-center cross-sectional study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTB disease during pregnancy is associated with poor maternal and neonatal outcomes, and is a leading non-obstetric cause of maternal death. However, optimal detection strategies remain uncertain. We aimed to identify the optimal screening approach for TB disease in pregnant women.
methodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase + Embase Classic, Web of Science, and CENTRAL to identify antenatal screening studies for TB disease. The yield, number needed to screen (NNS), and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated for each method. Pooled estimates were generated using random-effects meta-analyses. Narrative synthesis was conducted to summarise secondary outcomes.
resultsWe included 33 studies. Pooled yield for symptom screening (SS) was 7.26 [95% CI: 0.70, 19.25] cases per 1,000 versus 5.12 [95% CI: 0.79, 12.39] for TST/IGRA. NNS was 138 [95% CI: 51.95, 1,428.57] for SS versus 1,667 [95% CI: 537.63, 1,000,000] for TST/IGRA. SS pooled PPV was 3.85% [95% CI: 1.23-7.57%], and <0.01% [95% CI: <0.01-0.05%] for TST/IGRA. Narrative synthesis indicated antenatal SS is low-cost, feasible, and acceptable but poorly implemented.
conclusionIn pregnancy, symptom screening demonstrates highest yield and lowest NNS, is low-cost, feasible and acceptable. While currently optimal, the low PPV underscores the need for TB screening tools tailored to pregnant populations.
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.