ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Sensitivity and specificity of tuberculosis screening tools in people with diabetes.
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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Systematic screening for tuberculosis (TB) is recommended in people with diabetes; however, data on the accuracy of screening tools in this population are lacking. We assessed the accuracy of symptom and chest X-ray screening among people with diabetes. We consecutively enrolled adults with diabetes attending routine care in South Africa. All participants underwent symptom screening and chest X-ray. A single sputum specimen was collected from all participants and tested by Xpert Ultra. A positive Xpert Ultra result was used as the reference standard. We enrolled 673 participants. The median age was 54 years (interquartile range 47-60 years), and 63.8% were female. HIV prevalence was 17.2%. Prevalent TB was diagnosed in nine participants (1.33%). Any cough had a sensitivity of 22.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-60.0%) and a specificity of 97.5% (95%CI 96.0-98.6%). Expanding the symptom definition to include any of cough, fever, weight loss, or night sweats did not improve sensitivity (22.2%, 95% CI 2.1-60.0) and slightly reduced specificity to 96.0% (95% CI 94.2-97.0). Chest X-ray abnormalities suggestive of TB demonstrated a sensitivity of 55.6% (95%CI 21.2-86.3%) and a specificity of 95.4% (95%CI 93.4-97.0%). The specificity of chest X-ray was significantly lower in participants with prior TB (87.6%, 95% CI: 79.8-90.6%), compared to 97.2% (95% CI: 95.2-98.5%) in those without (p < 0.01). Symptom-based TB screening has poor sensitivity in people with diabetes. Although chest X-ray improved the sensitivity, it remained suboptimal, with a reduced specificity in people with previous TB.
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.