Outreach clinic vs house‐to‐house screening: Tuberculosis cases detected (microbiologically confirmed)
It is very uncertain whether outreach clinic changes tuberculosis cases detected (microbiologically confirmed) compared with house‐to‐house screening (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Outreach clinic vs house‐to‐house screening Tuberculosis cases detected (microbiologically confirmed) · adults It is very uncertain whether outreach clinic changes tuberculosis cases detected (microbiologically confirmed) compared with house‐to‐house screening (very low certainty). Interventions to increase tuberculosis case detection at primary healthcare or community‐level services (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.48 [1.11, 1.97] | 1 study · 405819 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions to increase tuberculosis case detection at primary healthcare or community‐level services 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.