↓ Skip to main content

Community-based management versus traditional hospitalization in treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Global Health Research and Policy, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#22 of 200)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
Title
Community-based management versus traditional hospitalization in treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Global Health Research and Policy, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41256-016-0010-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abimbola Onigbanjo Williams, Olusesan Ayodeji Makinde, Mojisola Ojo

Abstract

Multidrug drug resistant Tuberculosis (MDR-TB) and extensively drug resistant Tuberculosis (XDR-TB) have emerged as significant public health threats worldwide. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of community-based treatment to traditional hospitalization in improving treatment success rates among MDR-TB and XDR-TB patients in the 27 MDR-TB High burden countries (HBC). We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Lancet, Web of Science, International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) for studies on community-based treatment and traditional hospitalization and MDR-TB and XDR-TB from the 27 MDR-TB HBC. Data on treatment success and failure rates were extracted from retrospective and prospective cohort studies, and a case control study. Sensitivity analysis, subgroup analyses, and meta-regression analysis were used to explore bias and potential sources of heterogeneity. The final sample included 16 studies involving 3344 patients from nine countries; Bangladesh, China, Ethiopia, Kenya, India, South Africa, Philippines, Russia, and Uzbekistan. Based on a random-effects model, we observed a higher treatment success rate in community-based treatment (Point estimate = 0.68, 95 % CI: 0.59 to 0.76, p < 0.01) compared to traditional hospitalization (Point estimate = 0.57, 95 % CI: 0.44 to 0.69, p < 0.01). A lower treatment failure rate was observed in community-based treatment 7 % (Point estimate = 0.07, 95 % CI: 0.03 to 0.10; p < 0.01) compared to traditional hospitalization (Point estimate = 0.188, 95 % CI: 0.10 to 0.28; p < 0.01). In the subgroup analysis, studies without HIV co-infected patients, directly observed therapy short course-plus (DOTS-Plus) implemented throughout therapy, treatment duration > 18 months, and regimen with drugs >5 reported higher treatment success rate. In the meta-regression model, age of patients, adverse events, treatment duration, and lost to follow up explains some of the heterogeneity of treatment effects between studies. Community-based management improved treatment outcomes. A mix of interventions with DOTS-Plus throughout therapy and treatment duration > 18 months as well as strategies in place for lost to follow up and adverse events should be considered in MDR-TB and XDR-TB interventions, as they influenced positively, treatment success.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 21%
Researcher 19 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 6 5%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 29 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 5%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 34 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,022,087
of 22,952,268 outputs
Outputs from Global Health Research and Policy
#22
of 200 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,554
of 367,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Global Health Research and Policy
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,952,268 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 200 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 367,460 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them