↓ Skip to main content

Sensitivity and specificity of using trial-of-antibiotics versus sputum mycobacteriology for diagnosis of tuberculosis: protocol for a systematic literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
18 X users

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sensitivity and specificity of using trial-of-antibiotics versus sputum mycobacteriology for diagnosis of tuberculosis: protocol for a systematic literature review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0806-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Titus H. Divala, Katherine L. Fielding, Marriott Nliwasa, Derek J. Sloan, Ankur Gupta-Wright, Elizabeth L. Corbett

Abstract

Suboptimal diagnostics for pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) drives use of 'trial-of-antibiotics (non-tuberculosis)' in an attempt to distinguish PTB patients from those with bacterial lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). The underlying assumption-that patients with LRTI will report 'response' to broad-spectrum antibiotics, while those with PTB will not-has minimal evidence base for such a widely used intervention. Numerous potential causes of misclassification include bacterial super-infection of active PTB, placebo effect, and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The main aim of this systematic review is to collate available evidence on the performance of trial-of-antibiotics as a diagnostic test and to explore the timing, interpretation, and decision-making process. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, and Global Health using the Ovid platform for published studies that recruited adults being investigated for PTB, performed trial-of-antibiotics accompanied by mycobacteriological investigations, and reported both diagnostic test outcomes at the individual level. Following article selection, two authors will independently review titles and abstracts against eligibility criteria then perform full-text screening and extraction into a spreadsheet. We will conduct a risk of bias assessment at the level of the study using QUADAS-2 (University of Bristol) tool that assesses diagnostic evaluation work in four domains: (1) patient selection, (2) the index test, (3) the reference standard, and (4) patient flow and timing of tests. We will perform a narrative synthesis and, where possible, meta-analyses addressing our primary outcome. Our protocol adheres to the standards recommended by the PRISMA-P. Pooling all available evidence on the accuracy, approach, and interpretation of results of trial-of-antibiotics in the context of PTB diagnosis will meet an urgent need, considering the widespread utilisation and potential for antimicrobial resistance. We therefore believe that our findings will have impact on policy and that they will inform the design of future detailed investigations into this important diagnostic approach. PROSPERO CRD42017083915.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Master 5 10%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 22 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 6%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 22 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 10 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,781,696
of 23,975,876 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#288
of 2,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,639
of 340,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#8
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,876 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,077 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 340,750 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.