BACKGROUND: Sputum smear microscopy is the most widely available diagnostic test for pulmonary tuberculosis in countries with a high burden of the disease. Improving its accuracy is crucial to achievement of case-detection targets established by the Millennium Development Goals. Unfortunately, many patients are unable to submit all of the specimens needed for examination or to return for treatment because standard sputum collection and reporting requires several clinic visits. To inform policy recommendations by a WHO-convened Expert Group, we aimed to assess the accuracy of sputum smear examination with strategies for obtaining sputum on 1 day compared with strategies for obtaining sputum over 2 days. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of research articles comparing the accuracy of front-loaded or same-day microscopy and standard sputum smear microscopy for diagnosis of culture-confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis. We searched Medline, Embase, Biosis, and Web of Science for articles published between Jan 1, 2005, and Feb 14, 2012. Two investigators identified eligible articles and extracted data for individual study sites. We generated pooled summary estimates (95% CIs) for sensitivity and specificity by use of random-effects meta-analysis when four or more studies were available. FINDINGS: We identified eight relevant studies from five articles enrolling 7771 patients with suspected tuberculosis in low-income countries. Compared with the standard approach of examination of two smears with Ziehl-Neelsen light microscopy over 2 days, examination of two smears taken on the same day had much the same sensitivity (64% [95% CI 60 to 69] for standard microscopy vs 63% [58 to 68] for same-day microscopy) and specificity (98% [97 to 99] vs 98% [97 to 99]). We noted similar results for studies employing light-emitting diode fluorescence microscopy and for studies examining three smears, whether they were compared with two-smear strategies or with one another. INTERPRETATION: Same-day sputum smear microscopy is as accurate as standard smear microscopy. Data from tuberculosis programmes are needed to document the changes required in the health system to successfully implement the strategy and understand its effects. FUNDING: WHO and US National Institutes of Health.
BACKGROUND: Sputum smear microscopy is the most widely available diagnostic test for pulmonary tuberculosis in countries with a high burden of the disease. Improving its accuracy is crucial to achievement of case-detection targets established by the Millennium Development Goals. Unfortunately, many patients are unable to submit all of the specimens needed for examination or to return for treatment because standard sputum collection and reporting requires several clinic visits. To inform policy recommendations by a WHO-convened Expert Group, we aimed to assess the accuracy of sputum smear examination with strategies for obtaining sputum on 1 day compared with strategies for obtaining sputum over 2 days. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of research articles comparing the accuracy of front-loaded or same-day microscopy and standard sputum smear microscopy for diagnosis of culture-confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis. We searched Medline, Embase, Biosis, and Web of Science for articles published between Jan 1, 2005, and Feb 14, 2012. Two investigators identified eligible articles and extracted data for individual study sites. We generated pooled summary estimates (95% CIs) for sensitivity and specificity by use of random-effects meta-analysis when four or more studies were available. FINDINGS: We identified eight relevant studies from five articles enrolling 7771 patients with suspected tuberculosis in low-income countries. Compared with the standard approach of examination of two smears with Ziehl-Neelsen light microscopy over 2 days, examination of two smears taken on the same day had much the same sensitivity (64% [95% CI 60 to 69] for standard microscopy vs 63% [58 to 68] for same-day microscopy) and specificity (98% [97 to 99] vs 98% [97 to 99]). We noted similar results for studies employing light-emitting diode fluorescence microscopy and for studies examining three smears, whether they were compared with two-smear strategies or with one another. INTERPRETATION: Same-day sputum smear microscopy is as accurate as standard smear microscopy. Data from tuberculosis programmes are needed to document the changes required in the health system to successfully implement the strategy and understand its effects. FUNDING: WHO and US National Institutes of Health.
Authors: S B Squire; A K Belaye; A Kashoti; F M L Salaniponi; C J F Mundy; S Theobald; J Kemp Journal: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Holger J Schünemann; A Holger J Schünemann; Andrew D Oxman; Jan Brozek; Paul Glasziou; Roman Jaeschke; Gunn E Vist; John W Williams; Regina Kunz; Jonathan Craig; Victor M Montori; Patrick Bossuyt; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-05-17
Authors: Adithya Cattamanchi; Laurence Huang; William Worodria; Saskia den Boon; Nelson Kalema; Winceslaus Katagira; Patrick Byanyima; Samuel Yoo; John Matovu; Philip C Hopewell; J Lucian Davis Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Ashwin S Dharmadhikari; Matsie Mphahlele; Anton Stoltz; Kobus Venter; Rirhandzu Mathebula; Thabiso Masotla; Willem Lubbe; Marcello Pagano; Melvin First; Paul A Jensen; Martie van der Walt; Edward A Nardell Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2012-02-09 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Luis Eduardo Cuevas; Najla Al-Sonboli; Lovett Lawson; Mohammed Ahmed Yassin; Isabel Arbide; Nasher Al-Aghbari; Jeevan Bahadur Sherchand; Amin Al-Absi; Emmanuel Nnamdi Emenyonu; Yared Merid; Mosis Ifenyi Okobi; Juliana Olubunmi Onuoha; Melkamsew Aschalew; Abraham Aseffa; Greg Harper; Rachel Mary Anderson de Cuevas; Sally Jane Theobald; Carl-Michael Nathanson; Jean Joly; Brian Faragher; Stephen Bertel Squire; Andrew Ramsay Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Emmanuel Ssemmondo; Florence Mwangwa; Joel L Kironde; Dalsone Kwarisiima; Tamara D Clark; Carina Marquez; Edwin D Charlebois; Maya L Petersen; Moses R Kamya; Diane V Havlir; Gabriel Chamie Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: S McAllister; B Wiem Lestari; B Sujatmiko; A Siregar; E D Sihaloho; D Fathania; N F Dewi; R C Koesoemadinata; P C Hill; B Alisjahbana Journal: Public Health Action Date: 2017-09-21
Authors: Jennifer M Ross; Adithya Cattamanchi; Cecily R Miller; Andrew J Tatem; Achilles Katamba; Priscilla Haguma; Margaret A Handley; J Lucian Davis Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2015-07-27 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: S J Salyer; D L Fitter; R Milo; C Blanton; J L Ho; H Geffrard; W Morose; B J Marston Journal: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Payam Nahid; Susan E Dorman; Narges Alipanah; Pennan M Barry; Jan L Brozek; Adithya Cattamanchi; Lelia H Chaisson; Richard E Chaisson; Charles L Daley; Malgosia Grzemska; Julie M Higashi; Christine S Ho; Philip C Hopewell; Salmaan A Keshavjee; Christian Lienhardt; Richard Menzies; Cynthia Merrifield; Masahiro Narita; Rick O'Brien; Charles A Peloquin; Ann Raftery; Jussi Saukkonen; H Simon Schaaf; Giovanni Sotgiu; Jeffrey R Starke; Giovanni Battista Migliori; Andrew Vernon Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 9.079