SynthesisBMJ paediatrics open2026
Effectiveness and safety of the available preventive tuberculosis treatment regimens for children and adolescents: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ paediatrics open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough children are at a higher risk of progressing to tuberculosis (TB) disease compared with adults, research and publications addressing TB management have mostly emphasised adult disease.
methodsMEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and grey literature were searched from inception to 3 May 2021, and updated on 12 December 2024 for the systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). Randomised controlled trials of children and/or adolescents under 18 years with TB infection, contacts of drug-susceptible TB, without HIV, evaluating the effectiveness and safety of available regimens for the treatment of TB were included. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool 2. Effect estimates (RR and OR) are presented with 95% CIs. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
resultsEleven studies were obtained. All network geometries had open and disconnected loops, except adverse reactions for which we conducted a full NMA. We found that 4 months of isoniazid and rifampicin (4HR) reduces the number of active TB cases at 1 year, 2 years and 5 years of follow-up (RR 0.49 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.76)) compared with isoniazid for 9 months (9H). The isoniazid + rifapentine for 3 months (3HP) regimen (RR 1.09 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.15)), 4HR (RR 1.07 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.14)) and rifampicin for 4 months (4R) (RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.20)) regimens have higher treatment adherence compared with 9H. High variability was found in the reporting of adverse reactions, which were more likely to occur with 3HP compared with 4HR (OR 4.56 (95% CI 1.22 to 16.96)) and 4R (OR 6.37 (95% CI 2.11 to 19.19)). Adverse reactions occur less frequently with 4R (OR 0.34 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.58)) compared with 9H.
conclusionsThis study synthesised available data on paediatric short and long-course regimens. Short course regimens may have higher adherence (3HP, 4HR, 4R) and may reduce active TB incidence (isoniazid + rifampicin for 3 months (3HR) and 4HR) compared with 9H. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021271512.
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.