ArticleJournal of global infectious diseases
Evaluating Tuberculosis Screening Tools: A Decade-Long Network Meta-Analysis of Sensitivity and Specificity with Bibliometric Insights.
Article in Journal of global infectious diseases. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a significant global health challenge despite numerous innovations in diagnostic methods. Accurate early identification is essential for effective TB management and prevention of disease spread. Methods: This study combined bibliometrics and network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate publication trends and compare the sensitivity and specificity of various TB screening tools against the gold standard, culture. Literature searches were conducted in seven databases over the period 2014-2024. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model with adjustment for quality of evidence using Confidence in NMA. Results: Of the 22 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 13 diagnostic tools were compared in 34 direct and 44 indirect comparisons. Culture remained the method with the best accuracy. TB molecular bacterial load assay (TB-MBLA), mNGS, and RT- Conclusion: This study highlights that molecular methods provide rapid detection and superior diagnostic performance compared to conventional methods, while also necessitating consideration of specificity factors and the risk of overdiagnosis. These findings highlight the urgent need to prioritize affordable, rapid, and scalable TB screening tools such as TB-MBLA and RT-MTB in low-resource, high-burden settings to improve early detection and reduce transmission.
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.