ReviewThe Lancet. Infectious diseases2025
The health impact of identifying a person with tuberculosis through systematic screening.
Review in The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Do no harm - re-evaluating the risks of overtreatment in community-wide tuberculosis screening.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Screening populations at high risk for tuberculosis might improve clinical outcomes and reduce transmission, but the value and cost-effectiveness of population-based screening depend on the uncertain health impact of early tuberculosis detection. In this Personal View, we propose a framework for estimating the incremental health impact of systematic screening, including effects on tuberculosis morbidity, mortality, sequelae, and transmission. Our framework accounts for the timing of screening, relative to when routine diagnosis might occur and when health effects become inevitable. We also account for the heterogeneous duration of tuberculosis, as people with longer disease courses (associated with lower mortality but more transmission) are more likely to be detected by screening. Finally, we use this framework to estimate that population-based chest x-ray screening interventions might avert 2·4 disability-adjusted life-years per person (95% uncertainty interval 0·8-7·4) found to have tuberculosis through screening-well within the cost-effectiveness thresholds for many programmes with published costs.
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.