ReviewInternational journal of MCH and AIDS2026
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Innovative Approaches in Tuberculosis Diagnosis: Challenges and Future Directions.
Review in International journal of MCH and AIDS, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Tuberculosis (TB) has continued to be one of the global threats, affecting millions of individuals globally, including the maternal and child health (MCH) populations and individuals with HIV/AIDS. TB infected 10.8 million individuals, leading to 1.25 million deaths across the globe annually, leaving 4 million missing cases contributing to the global TB burden. This study aims to unveil innovative approaches to TB diagnosis, challenges, and the future direction of this field. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to retrieve studies published between 2019 and 2024 from PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The studies were reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and screened using the Rayyan tool. The quality and risk of bias of the included studies were assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 for diagnostic accuracy studies and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for observational studies. A random effects model was employed to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity, while Egger's test and funnel plots were utilized to evaluate publication bias. R and MetaDTA software were used for all the statistical analyses. Results: The review included 25 studies with sample sizes ranging from 100 to 6,520 participants and assessed various innovative approaches for diagnosing TB, including molecular methods, biomarker-based techniques, and artificial intelligence (AI) applications. The most common approach was molecular testing, specifically cartridge-based tests. The overall sensitivity of these methods was 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70-0.86), with a heterogeneity index (I²) of 92.9% and a Conclusion and Global Health Implications: This review reinforces the promise of innovative diagnostic methods, especially cartridge-based molecular tests, for improving TB detection. However, moderate sensitivity and high heterogeneity emphasize the need for cautious implementation and further validation of new tools such as the AI-based and biomarker-based. Strategic investment in research and contextual deployment is critical for closing the TB diagnosis gap globally.
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.