SynthesisFrontiers in microbiology2026
Urine-based diagnostic tests for tuberculosis: a scoping review highlighting unmet diagnostic needs.
Synthesis in Frontiers in microbiology, 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
Introduction: Current diagnostics for tuberculosis (TB) rely on sputum or site-specific specimen collection, posing critical limitations in certain populations. Urine has emerged as an alternative specimen, as demonstrated by urine lipoarabinomannan (LAM) testing. Beyond LAM, no urine-based tests are established for clinical use, and evidence for non-LAM urine antigen tests and urine-based nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) remains inconsistently synthesized. This scoping review aimed to comprehensively map current evidence and identify gaps in urine-based diagnostic tests for TB. Methods: We conducted a scoping review across three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Embase) of studies evaluating urine-based diagnostic tests for TB and reporting diagnostic performance metrics, extracting data on urine test type, country, TB disease type, study population, and HIV status. Findings were summarized descriptively and visualized to illustrate trends. We also extracted technical approaches for urine-based NAATs and urine concentration methods. Results: In total, 208 publications reporting 274 urine-based tests published between 1995 and 2024 were included. Most studies were conducted in high-burden settings and focused on pulmonary TB (44.7%), adult populations (62.5%), and people living with HIV (31.3%). LAM-based tests dominated the literature, accounting for 49.3% ( Conclusion: Evidence for urine-based diagnostic tests for TB remains limited for extrapulmonary TB, children, and non-HIV individuals, despite substantial unmet need. Although urine LAM is the most established assay, evaluations of non-LAM urine antigen tests and urine-based NAATs remain exploratory, with few studies, small cohorts, and predominantly laboratory-based assays. Further research is needed to identify and validate reliable, broadly applicable urine-based diagnostic tests to address these gaps.
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.