SynthesisBMJ open2023
Stool specimen for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in adults: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A scoping review of interventions in childhood tuberculosis prevention and treatment.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026Review
- Optimising pulmonary tuberculosis diagnosis in adults: diagnostic usefulness of stool gene xpert alone and in combination with sputum gene xpert at a referral centre in Northeastern Nigeria.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Evaluation of stool-based testing to diagnose tuberculosis in children using the Truenat platform in routine settings in Nigeria.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Utility of alternative specimens in the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in people living with human immunodeficiency virus in Guinea.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Performance of stool Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis among adults living with HIV: a multicentre, prospective diagnostic study.The Lancet. Microbe · 2025Observational
- Performance of stool-based Xpert MTB/RIF assay in the diagnosis of presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis in adults unable to expectorate sputum.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Culturing stool specimens has no added value in diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis.Journal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases · 2024Article
- Non-sputum-based samples and biomarkers for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: the hope to improve childhood and HIV-associated tuberculosis diagnosis.European journal of medical research · 2024Review
- Comparison of Power Ultrasound and NALC-NaOH Decontamination Methods for Stool Mycobacterial Culture: A Prospective Study.Microorganisms · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of stool specimens to diagnose pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) in adults.
designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science and the Cochrane database were searched from inception to 9 March 2023-10 March 2023 using a comprehensive search strategy; reference lists of selected articles and relevant review articles were manually searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies in English reporting diagnostic performance of stool specimens against respiratory specimens using mycobacterial culture or smear microscopy or Xpert assay to diagnose PTB in adults were eligible for this systematic review. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved citations and extracted data. The risk of bias and applicability of results were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Narrative data synthesis was performed.
resultsA total of 1658 citations were screened, and 28 full-text articles were assessed. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The reported sensitivity and specificity of stool culture varied between 21.4% and 63.9%, and 61.5% and 100%, respectively. In stool smear microscopy, sensitivities and specificities ranged from 12.1% to 53.9%, and from 79.5% to 100%, respectively. The reported sensitivities of PCR assays, including Xpert assays, ranged from 69.7% to 100%, with specificities ranging from 69.8% to 100%. Most of the studies had a low risk of bias and a low applicability concern in all domains.
conclusionThis systematic review could not conclude on the diagnostic accuracy of stool specimens for PTB diagnosis in adults. Further studies are required to evaluate the accuracy of stool specimens in adults to enable meta-analyses in updates of this review as well as other systematic reviews. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021245203.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.