↓ Skip to main content

Rapid urine-based screening for tuberculosis to reduce AIDS-related mortality in hospitalized patients in Africa (the STAMP trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
129 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
Rapid urine-based screening for tuberculosis to reduce AIDS-related mortality in hospitalized patients in Africa (the STAMP trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12879-016-1837-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ankur Gupta-Wright, Katherine L. Fielding, Joep J. van Oosterhout, Douglas K. Wilson, Elizabeth L. Corbett, Clare Flach, Krishna P. Reddy, Rochelle P. Walensky, Jurgens A. Peters, Melanie Alufandika-Moyo, Stephen D. Lawn

Abstract

HIV-associated tuberculosis (TB) co-infection remains an enormous burden to international public health. Post-mortem studies have highlighted the high proportion of HIV-positive adults admitted to hospital with TB. Determine TB-LAM and Xpert MTB/RIF assays can substantially increase diagnostic yield of TB within one day of hospital admission. However, it remains unclear if this approach can impact clinical outcomes. The STAMP trial aims to test the hypothesis that the implementation a urine-based screening strategy for TB can reduce all cause-mortality among HIV-positive patients admitted to hospital when compared to current, sputum-based screening. The trial is a pragmatic, individually randomised, multi-country (Malawi and South Africa) clinical trial with two study arms (1:1 recruitment). Unselected HIV-positive patients admitted to medical wards, irrespective of presentation, meeting the inclusion criteria and giving consent will be randomized to screening for TB using either: (i) 'standard of care'- testing of sputum using the Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert) or (ii) 'intervention'- testing of sputum using Xpert and testing of urine using (a) Determine TB-LAM lateral-flow assay and (b) Xpert following concentration of urine by centrifugation. Patients will be excluded if they have received TB treatment in the previous 12 months, if they have received isoniazid preventive therapy in the last 6 months, if they are aged <18 years or they live outside the pre-specified geographical area. Results will be provided to the responsible medical team as soon as available to inform decisions regarding TB treatment. Both the study and routine medical team will be masked to study arm allocation. 1300 patients will be enrolled per arm (equal numbers at the two trial sites). The primary endpoint is all-cause mortality at 56 days. An economic analysis will be conducted to project long-term outcomes for shorter-term trial data, including cost-effectiveness. This pragmatic trial assesses an intervention to reduce the high mortality caused by HIV-associated TB, which could feasibly be scaled up in high-burden settings if shown to be efficacious and cost-effective. We discuss the challenges of designing a trial to assess the impact on mortality of laboratory-based TB screening interventions given frequent initiation of empirical treatment and a failure of several previous clinical trials to demonstrate an impact on clinical outcomes. We also elaborate on the practical and ethical issues of 'testing a test' in general. ISRCTN Registry ( ISRCTN71603869 ) prospectively registered 08 May 2015; the South African National Controlled Trials Registry (DOH-27-1015-5185) prospectively registered October 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 129 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 21%
Student > Master 22 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 7 5%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 31 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 5%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 45 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 March 2017.
All research outputs
#15,384,989
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#4,487
of 7,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,956
of 321,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#130
of 228 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,691 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 321,009 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 228 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.