ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Sputum scarcity among adolescents and adults with presumptive tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) typically relies on being able to produce a sputum sample for microbiological testing. However, sputum scarcity, the inability to self-expectorate an adequate sputum sample for TB testing, is a well-known concern. Our systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the proportion of sputum scarcity among adolescents and adults being evaluated for presumptive TB in healthcare facilities. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and clinical trials databases with no language restrictions from January 2010 to October 2023 using terms for 'TB', sputum, and diagnostic studies. We excluded studies with participants aged <15 years, that enrolled patients already providing sputum, or not adequately reporting information on sputum collection. Published summary data was extracted, and the risk of bias was assessed. Summary estimates for the proportion of sputum scarcity were calculated overall and by pre-specified sub-groups. The pooled proportion of sputum scarcity was calculated by random effects meta-analysis. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023473882). Findings: Our search identified 9895 records, of which 114 studies were included and 81 were rated as a low risk of bias. The median proportion of sputum scarcity across all 114 studies was 6.0% (95% CI: 2.9-9.1%, IQR: 0-19.9%). In subgroup meta-analyses limited to studies collecting one or two self-expectorated spot sputum samples, the pooled estimate of sputum scarcity was 23% (95%CI: 14-33%, n=27). Sputum scarcity was higher in PLHIV sub-groups. The pooled estimate of sputum scarcity in studies enrolling only PLHIV was 24% (95% CI: 15-33%, n=9) for collection of one or two self-expectorated spot sputum samples. Sputum scarcity was the highest in PLHIV inpatients or with advanced disease, with 32% (95% CI: 22-41%, n=5) unable to provide one or two self-expectorated samples. Patients without HIV had the lowest pooled estimate of scarcity, with 12% (95% CI: 3-21%, n=5) unable to provide a self-expectorated sample of any number or collection time. And studies using sputum induction to collect one or two spot samples had a pooled scarcity of 10% (95% CI: 0-21%, n=12). Interpretation: Sputum scarcity is seen in nearly a quarter of patients being evaluated for TB and this compromises TB detection. These findings support the ongoing work to develop non-sputum TB tests. Funding: Gates Foundation (INV-069540).
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.