ArticleAdvances in rheumatology (London, England)2025
Brazilian guidelines for the management of tuberculosis infection in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: is retesting in latent tuberculosis screening appropriate and Safe?
Article in Advances in rheumatology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reply to the letter on "Brazilian guidelines for the management of tuberculosis infection in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: is retesting in latent tuberculosis screening appropriate and safe?"Advances in rheumatology (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The article "Brazilian Recommendations for the Management of Tuberculosis Infection in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases" by Viviane de Souza et al. presents important discussions on the subject; however, the recommendation for annual repetition of the TST/IGRA test for three years and after medication changes raises considerable concerns. This approach may lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI). Frequent false-positive results in retests can result in unnecessary antibiotic use, contributing to bacterial resistance, a problem of global significance. The recommendation, considered to have a moderate level of evidence, is subject to criticism. Arguments used to support retesting, such as high conversion rates of tests after one year, reports of tuberculosis cases despite negative screenings being attributed to false negatives, and reliance on other sources with lower levels of evidence, do not constitute sufficient evidence to confirm tuberculosis infection or justify the recommendation. On the other hand, there is evidence that has not been considered in the discussion against the recommendation for retesting, indicating that this practice may increase the risk of diagnosing false-positive infections, leading to overtreatment without clinically proven benefits. Potentially harmful interventions should not be implemented without solid evidence to support them. In this letter to the editor, we briefly discuss this recommendation and the arguments against its implementation, highlighting its associated risks.
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.