ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2025
Diagnostic performance of chest radiography for pediatric tuberculosis across high- and low-burden settings.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- PLUTO: a YOLO-based lung field detector for pediatric lateral chest X-rays generalizable to adults.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- A Year in Review on Tuberculosis and Non-tuberculous Mycobacteria Disease: A 2026 Update for Clinicians and Scientists.Pathogens & immunity · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chest radiography (CXR) is the most widely used imaging tool in pediatric tuberculosis (TB) diagnostic pathways, and remains central in current WHO algorithms. However, its standalone diagnostic accuracy has not been well established in standardized multicenter evaluations. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement of CXR for pediatric TB across two epidemiologically distinct settings, and to assess the added value of clinical information and lateral projections. Methods: We evaluated the diagnostic performance of CXR in two pediatric cohorts from distinct TB-burden settings. The high-burden cohort (Mozambique) included 218 children under 3 years (10 confirmed TB, 95 unconfirmed TB, 113 unlikely TB). The low-burden cohort (Spain) included 674 children under 18 years (145 confirmed TB, 237 unconfirmed TB, 95 with TB infection, 101 with community-acquired pneumonia, and 96 healthy controls). Four independent expert readers (three pediatric radiologists and one pediatric infectious disease specialist), each with over 15 years of experience, interpreted CXRs using a standardized digital platform, blinded to clinical data. In a subset of 75 Spanish cases, re-readings incorporated limited clinical information. Results: Sensitivity for confirmed TB was low in both settings (31.0% in Mozambique, 46.1% in Spain), while specificity was high (94.7% and 96.5%, respectively). In a subset of 75 Spanish cases, adding limited clinical data increased sensitivity from 39.3% to 50.0% ( Conclusions: This multicenter analysis confirms the limited sensitivity but high specificity of CXR for pediatric TB, even when interpreted by expert readers. These findings highlight that CXR alone cannot reliably confirm or exclude disease and should be integrated with clinical and microbiological data. Future diagnostic pathways, including artificial intelligence-assisted CXR interpretation, will likely need multimodal approaches to overcome the intrinsic limitations of imaging alone.
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.