Cochrane · systematic review · CD011432
Interventions to increase tuberculosis case detection at primary healthcare or community‐level services
Mhimbira, FA, Cuevas, LE, Dacombe, R, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2017 · Cochrane Library
Infectious DiseasesAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
22
current version
GRADE rated
10
No studies
3
Included studies
NR
No studies 3 · 13.6%Ungraded 9 · 40.9%Very low 5 · 22.7%Low 5 · 22.7%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Tuberculosis outreach screening versus no intervention
Population: all age groups
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Tuberculosis cases detected (microbiologically confirmed) Tuberculosis outreach screening vs no intervention | RR 1.24 [0.86, 1.79] | 4 studies · 163043 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Default within first 2 months Tuberculosis outreach screening vs no intervention | RR 0.67 [0.47, 0.96] | 849 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Treatment success Tuberculosis outreach screening vs no intervention | RR 1.07 [1, 1.15] | 849 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Treatment failure Tuberculosis outreach screening vs no intervention | RR 1.57 [0.5, 4.92] | 849 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Tuberculosis mortality Tuberculosis outreach screening vs no intervention | RR 0.99 [0.43, 2.25] | 849 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Long‐term tuberculosis prevalence Tuberculosis outreach screening vs no intervention | RR 1.14 [0.65, 2] | 556836 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Health promotion activities versus no intervention
Population: all age groups
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Long‐term tuberculosis prevalence (assessed at 4 years) Health promotion activities vs no intervention | RR 1.31 | 405788 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Treatment success Health promotion activities vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Tuberculosis mortality Health promotion activities vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Long‐term tuberculosis prevalence Health promotion activities vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Training interventions compared to no intervention
Population: all age groups
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Tuberculosis cases detected (microbiologically confirmed) Training interventions vs no intervention | RR 1.68 [1.03, 2.72] | 1 study · 1999 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Treatment success Training interventions vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Tuberculosis mortality Training interventions vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Long‐term tuberculosis prevalence Training interventions vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Outreach tuberculosis screening versus health promotion
Population: adults
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Tuberculosis cases detected (microbiologically confirmed) Outreach tuberculosis screening vs health promotion | RR 1.71 [1.27, 2.31] | 1 study · 110162 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Treatment success Outreach tuberculosis screening vs health promotion | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Tuberculosis mortality Outreach tuberculosis screening vs health promotion | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Long‐term tuberculosis prevalence Outreach tuberculosis screening vs health promotion | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Outreach clinic versus house‐to‐house screening
Population: adults
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Tuberculosis cases detected (microbiologically confirmed) Outreach clinic vs house‐to‐house screening | RR 1.48 [1.11, 1.97] | 1 study · 405819 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Treatment success Outreach clinic vs house‐to‐house screening | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Tuberculosis mortality Outreach clinic vs house‐to‐house screening | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Long‐term tuberculosis prevalence Outreach clinic vs house‐to‐house screening | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |