ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Diabetes screening among people with tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta analysis.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major public health challenge, with 10.8 million people developing TB in 2023. Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with an increased risk of TB and adverse TB outcomes. The prevalence of DM is rising, especially in regions of the world where TB is endemic. Early detection and proper management of DM in those with TB may improve outcomes. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the yield of screening and the prevalence of DM among people with TB. Databases searched included PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, LILACS, and Web of Science between January 2000 and September 2025. We included studies on the yield and prevalence of DM determined through DM screening among people with TB, where TB was identified microbiologically. All records were independently screened by two reviewers and discrepancies resolved by discussion. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Hoy tool for prevalence studies. Studies were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis with inverse variance weighting and stratified by World Health Organization (WHO) region and age (over and under 40 years). This systematic review and meta-analysis is registered online on PROSPERO CRD42023425596. Findings: Our search retrieved 7530 studies. After full-text screening we included 33 studies involving 19,581 individuals with TB from 21 countries. The overall pooled yield of DM screening in people with TB was 7.8% (95% CI: 5.1-11.1), ranging from 2.6% (95% CI: 1.5-4.0) in the Western Pacific region (3 studies from 1 country) to 31.6% (95% CI: 12.4-54.3) in the Eastern Mediterranean region (3 studies from 2 countries). Interpretation: DM is common among people with TB. The yield of DM screening was greater in the Eastern Mediterranean and South-East Asia regions which had a higher prevalence of DM. Findings were limited by substantial heterogeneity across studies and lack of comparison groups without TB in included studies. Future studies are needed to optimize approaches to detect DM among people with TB. Funding: The World Health Organization Department for HIV, Tuberculosis, Hepatitis and Sexually Transmitted Infections and the Department of Noncommunicable Diseases and Mental Health, and the Preventive Treatment of Latent Tuberculosis Infection in People with Diabetes Mellitus study.
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.