ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Importance of confirmatory test characteristics in optimizing community-based screening for tuberculosis: an epidemiological modeling analysis.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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.
- Fecal Immunochemical Test and Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Real-World Practice: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe costs, operational barriers, and sensitivity of available tools to confirm a TB diagnosis limit current active case-finding (ACF) efforts for tuberculosis (TB). However, it is not well understood which of these limitations have the greatest epidemiological relevance and might therefore warrant prioritization in confirmatory test development.
methodsTo explore which features of the confirmatory testing step most influence the impact of ACF, we developed a state-transition model of a one-time, community-based ACF campaign, with a fixed budget of one million United States dollars for screening and confirmatory testing, assuming an adult target population with four times the national prevalence of Uganda. We compared TB diagnoses, mortality, and transmission when conducting ACF with a currently available confirmatory test (mirroring sputum-based Xpert Ultra) versus ACF with an improved confirmatory test, i.e., (1) increased sensitivity (from 69% to 80%), (2) non-sputum specimen type (increasing specimen availability from 93% to 100%), (3) immediate turn-around of test results at the point-of-care (increasing delivery of positive results from 91% to 100%), or (4) reduced costs (from $20 to $10 per confirmatory test).
resultsIn a simulated target population of 500,000 adults, 8,029 (1.6%; 95% uncertainty range [UR] 6,634-9,380) had TB disease, and 1,136 (789-1,586) were projected to die of TB in the absence of ACF. Assuming current tests, ACF could reach 149,811 (90,834 - 217,928; 30% of the target population) people under the allotted budget, connecting 1,151 (676-1,813) individuals with TB to treatment and averting 135 (64-249) deaths. Higher diagnostic sensitivity most increased the number of people with TB who received treatment as a result of ACF (by 15% [5-27%]). However, improvements that could benefit individuals regardless of their sputum bacillary load, such as reduced test costs, achieved larger reductions in mortality (11% [4-36%]).
conclusionDue to greater detection of individuals with high bacillary load, making confirmatory tests for community-based TB screening less expensive and more accessible may lead to greater population health benefits than further increasing test sensitivity. Nonetheless, achieving large (> 20%) increases in the health impact of ACF will require improvements to components of ACF other than the confirmatory diagnostic test.
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.