ArticleTropical medicine & international health : TM & IH2026
Advanced Technologies for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis Using Exhaled Breath Samples: A Systematic Scoping Review.
Article in Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH, 2026. 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.
- Advanced Technologies for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis Using Exhaled Breath Samples: A Systematic Scoping Review.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesNon-invasive methods based on exhaled breath samples have emerged as promising alternatives for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis, especially in settings where sputum collection is challenging and laboratory infrastructure is limited. We aimed to map the evidence on advanced technologies available for detecting pulmonary tuberculosis using alveolar breath, bioaerosols, or exhaled breath condensate.
methodsA comprehensive scoping review following international guidelines was performed (OSF: 10.17605/OSF.IO/TRJ7W). Searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science (June 2025). Primary studies evaluating physical or chemical diagnostic methods based on biological exhaled breath samples for detecting pulmonary tuberculosis in symptomatic patients were included. Studies' metadata, including method accuracy metrics, were extracted for diagnosis performance comparison. Evidence was synthesised using descriptive statistical and qualitative methods.
resultsOverall, 19 studies published between 2010 and 2025 were included, mostly conducted in high tuberculosis-burden countries such as South Africa (16%), China (11%) and Paraguay (11%). The most evaluated techniques were electronic nose (e-nose) (42%), gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS-based) (21%) and machine learning applied to mass spectrometry (ML-MS) approaches (11%). Important heterogeneity in studies' design and analytical approaches was observed. All included studies used non-invasive samples and were classified as intended for screening purposes; none aimed for confirmatory diagnosis. Among the included studies, 10 (53%) were classified as near point-of-care approaches. Of these, 8 (80%) met the minimum sensitivity requirement for screening tests, although only one also achieved the corresponding specificity threshold. The highest diagnostic performance reported showed a sensitivity of 98.5% (95% CI: 92.1-100) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI: 93.5-100).
conclusionsAlthough research on exhaled breath-based technologies for pulmonary tuberculosis diagnosis is advancing, with some alternatives presenting moderate-to-high performance, their implementation still requires standardised validation, methodological improvements and field testing in real-world settings.
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.