ArticleIJTLD open2025
Diagnostic accuracy of a commercial AI digital stethoscope for diagnosis of TB.
Article in IJTLD open, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImproved TB screening requires non-invasive, low-cost, and rapid diagnostics. Digital stethoscopes utilising machine-learning approaches to analyse respiratory sounds have potential.
methodsWe assessed accuracy of a commercial digital stethoscope for TB diagnosis among TB symptomatic participants. The microbiological reference standard (MRS) was sputum TB-positive on either liquid culture, solid culture, or Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra. Adults were enrolled from South Africa, Uganda, Vietnam, and Peru, with pre-defined sampling of 60 MRS-positive and 180 MRS-negative participants over two stages. Respiratory sounds from six auscultation positions on the participant's torso were analysed. The manufacturer (blinded to MRS status) provided participant scores and a test-positivity cut-off.
resultsAmong 240 participants, 135 (56%) were female, 62 (26%) living with HIV, 35 (15%) current smokers, and 31 (13%) previously treated for TB. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity, adjusted for country-stratified sampling, were 77% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 65-85) and 50% (95% CI: 43-57), respectively. Sensitivity was lower among people living with HIV and those with sputum smear-negative TB and varied by country. Testing took 5 min per participant (median, interquartile range 4-6).
conclusionThese early data suggest that further refinement of this test is warranted. The device is simple to use, is inexpensive, and can be used offline.
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.