ArticlePloS one2023
Diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasound scan in the diagnosis of childhood tuberculosis.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- POCUS Examination of the Mediastinum in Children: A Simplified and Standardized Protocol for Pulmonary Tuberculosis.POCUS journal · 2025Article
- Comparison of chest ultrasound features to chest radiography in the diagnosis for pediatric tuberculosis: a cross-sectional study.The Pan African medical journal · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Comprehensive Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Pediatric Tuberculosis in Spain: A Prospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCUObservational
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chest Ultrasound Scan (CUS) has been utilized in place of CXR in the diagnosis of adult pneumonia with similar or higher sensitivity and specificity to CXR. However, there is a paucity of data on the use of CUS for the diagnosis of childhood TB. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of CUS for childhood TB. This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Mulago National Referral Hospital in Uganda. Eighty children up to 14 years of age with presumptive TB were enrolled. They all had CUS and CXR performed and interpreted independently by radiologists. The radiologist who performed the CXR was blinded to the CUS findings, and vice versa. Radiologists noted whether TB was likely or unlikely. A two-by-two table was developed to compare the absolute number of children as either TB likely or TB unlikely on CXR or CUS. This was used to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of CUS when screening for TB in children, with a correction to accommodate the use of CXR as a reference test. The sensitivity of CUS was 64% (95% CI 48.5%-77.3%), while its specificity was 42.7% (95% CI 25.5%-60.8%). Both the CUS and CXR found 29 children with a likelihood of TB, and 27 children unlikely to have TB. CUS met the sensitivity target set by the WHO TPP for Triage, and it had a sensitivity and specificity comparable to that of CXR.
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.