ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Refining research outcomes: Lessons from the setup of an endpoint review committee and radiological review in tuberculosis observational diagnostic studies.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most tuberculosis diagnostic validation studies use microbiological or combination reference standards to define tuberculosis. We convened an Endpoint Review Committee (ERC) to define outcomes in ERASE-TB, a longitudinal cohort study across three high tuberculosis-burden countries, aimed at validating novel diagnostics for early detection. Herein, we describe processes and outcomes of the ERC. ERASE-TB enrolled 2,109 household contacts of people with tuberculosis who were followed up 6-monthly up to 24 months with clinical, microbiological, and radiological assessments at each visit. Any participants with a chest X-ray suggestive of tuberculosis or a positive Xpert MTB/Rif Ultra were investigated and eligible for endpoint review. For these, the clinical presentation, radiological, and microbiological results were reviewed independently by two study clinicians; any discordant endpoint categorisations were assessed by the ERC (first individually; if discordant, during a consensus meeting). Tuberculosis outcomes relied on predefined definitions (confirmed, likely, possible, unlikely). The ERC comprised four members: a tuberculosis programme manager, clinicians, and a radiologist. Semi-structured interviews (n = 4) with ERC members explored experiences and challenges in tuberculosis classification. A total of 96 clinical summaries underwent review, 55 were agreed internally, with the majority being categorised as confirmed tuberculosis (34/55, 61.8%). Among the remaining 41, the ERC members agreed on only 14 (34.1%) classifications, with the majority being classified as confirmed tuberculosis (10/14, 71.4%). The discordant 27 were discussed at the consensus meeting; 9/27 were classified as likely tuberculosis (33.3%), and 7/27 as possible and unlikely (25.9%). Qualitative interviews highlighted the complexity of tuberculosis diagnosis, value of longitudinal measurements, and tensions between decision making for research as compared to clinical purposes. Standardized tuberculosis classification frameworks, longitudinal data, and real-time expert review can improve diagnostic accuracy and comparability across studies. Future research should integrate structured ERC processes prospectively to refine tuberculosis case definitions and ensure robust clinical and research outcomes.
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.