ArticlePloS one2026
Extended treatment duration and recurrence in successfully treated drug-susceptible pulmonary tuberculosis with cavity on chest radiograph.
Article in PloS one, 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCavity on chest radiograph is recognized as an independent risk factor for recurrence in pulmonary tuberculosis (TB), but evidence supporting extended treatment in these patients remains limited, particularly in real-world data from Korea.
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis using data from a multicenter prospective cohort of patients with pulmonary tuberculosis enrolled at 18 Korean institutions, comparing recurrence rates between standard treatment (≤200 days) and extended treatment (>200 days) among drug-susceptible pulmonary TB patients with cavity on chest radiograph.
resultsAmong 159 patients, 58 (36.5%) received standard treatment and 101 (63.5%) received extended treatment. Baseline sputum smear positivity was higher in the extended group (29.3% vs. 56.4%, p = 0.002), but 2-month culture positivity (6.3% vs. 4.4%, p > 0.999) and time to culture conversion (8.00 ± 3.91 vs. 7.45 ± 3.73 weeks, p = 0.454) were similar. Recurrence during post-treatment follow-up occurred in 4 patients (2.5%) and did not differ between groups (3.4% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.966). Treatment interruption due to adverse drug reactions was more frequent with extended treatment (1.7% vs. 7.9%, p = 0.204), while overall adverse event rates were comparable. In a fixed-time analysis using Firth's penalized logistic regression, extended treatment showed a numerically lower risk of recurrence, although statistical significance was not reached (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-1.06; p = 0.056). Among covariates, low body mass index was associated with recurrence, but this estimate was very imprecise and should be interpreted with caution.
conclusionCavity on chest radiograph alone may not be sufficient to justify routine extension of treatment beyond 200 days. Because only four recurrence events were observed, the adjusted association favoring extended treatment was imprecise and should be interpreted as exploratory rather than definitive. Larger prospective studies that systematically capture microbiologic response and detailed radiologic disease burden are needed to identify which patients with cavitary disease may benefit from individualized treatment extension.
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.