ArticleRevista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P2026
Operationalization of rapid molecular test coverage for tuberculosis in different international contexts: a scoping review.
Article in Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo map studies on the coverage of the rapid molecular test for tuberculosis in different international contexts.
methodA scoping review conducted according to the PRISMA-ScR recommendations, with searches in the MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, LILACS, and BDTD databases, covering the period from 2011 to 2025.
resultsThe 20 included studies revealed conceptual heterogeneity in the operationalization of coverage, ranging from proportions of testing in specific population groups to indicators of equipment availability and geographic accessibility, with no standardization across countries and contexts. Values ranged from less than 1% to approximately 80%, with marked differences across countries, target populations, and analyzed periods. Socioeconomic, structural, financial, and facility-access challenges hinder the use of the test.
conclusionTest coverage varies across countries and contexts, limited by structural and financial barriers and by the lack of conceptual and methodological standardization in its measurement. Expanding and monitoring coverage in a comparable way requires governmental commitment, decentralization, and the adoption of uniform criteria aligned with World Health Organization guidelines.
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.