ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Measurement of Tuberculosis treatment adherence: A methodological scoping review of observational 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite extensive conceptual development, the definition and measurement of Tuberculosis (TB) treatment adherence remain inconsistent. This ambiguity obscures what is being assessed and compared across studies. This scoping review examined how adherence is labelled, defined, and operationalised in observational studies of drug-susceptible TB, assessed consistency with contemporary frameworks, and identified methodological gaps. We conducted a scoping review of observational studies on drug-susceptible TB identified from eight databases up to February 2026. Data were extracted on terminology, measurement approaches, and operational definitions. Content analysis was used to map labels and indicators to the constructs they implicitly presuppose. One hundred and three studies were included. Treatment-taking behaviour was mostly assessed through clinician assessment or self-report. Explicit definitions were uncommon, and operational criteria served as de facto definitions. Multidimensional measures were frequently reduced to binary or ordinal outcomes, and most studies relied on cross-sectional designs, reinforcing static representations of a dynamic process. Thus, TB adherence research faces a fundamental problem of construct conflation: the same label is used to describe behaviours that are conceptually distinct, limiting comparability and weakening the interventions' evidence base. Standardising reporting requirements would strengthen the evidence base for programmes addressing structural and social drivers of adherence.
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.