↓ Skip to main content

Digital CXR with computer aided diagnosis versus symptom screen to define presumptive tuberculosis among household contacts and impact on tuberculosis diagnosis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 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
Digital CXR with computer aided diagnosis versus symptom screen to define presumptive tuberculosis among household contacts and impact on tuberculosis diagnosis
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2388-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monde Muyoyeta, Nkatya Chanda Kasese, Deborah Milimo, Isaac Mushanga, Mapopa Ndhlovu, Nathan Kapata, Maureen Moyo-Chilufya, Helen Ayles

Abstract

Household (HH) contact tracing is a strategy that targets high risk groups for TB. Symptom based screening is the standard used to identify HH contacts at risk for TB during HH contact tracing for TB. However, this strategy may be limited due to poor performance in predicting TB. The objective of this study was to compare CXR with Computer Aided Diagnosis (CAD) against symptom screen for defining presumptive TB and how TB detection changes with each method. Household contacts of consecutive index bacteriologically confirmed TB cases were visited by study teams and given TB/HIV education to raise awareness of the risk of TB following close contact with a TB patient. Contacts were encouraged to visit the health facility for screening; where symptoms history was obtained and opt out HIV testing was provided as part of the screening process. CXR was offered to all regardless of symptoms, followed by definitive sputum test with either Xpert MTB RIF or smear microscopy. Among 919 HH contacts that presented for screening, 865 were screened with CXR and 464 (53.6%) had an abnormal CXR and the rest had a normal CXR. Among 444 HH contacts with valid sputum results, 274 (61.7%) were symptom screen positive and 255 (57.4%) had an abnormal CXR. Overall, TB was diagnosed in 32/444 (7.2%); 13 bacteriologically unconfirmed and 19 bacteriologically confirmed. Of 19 bacteriologically confirmed TB 8 (42.1%) were symptom screen negative contacts with an abnormal CXR and these 6/8 (75.0%) were HIV positive. Among the 13 bacteriologically unconfirmed TB cases, 7 (53.8%) were HIV positive and all had an abnormal CXR. Symptom screen if used alone with follow on definitive TB testing only for symptom screen positive individuals would have missed eight of the 19 confirmed TB cases detected in this study. There is need to consider use of other screening strategies apart from symptom screen alone for optimal rule out of TB especially in HIV positive individuals that are at greatest risk of TB and present atypically.

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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 17%
Student > Master 18 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 34 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 41 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 19 March 2021.
All research outputs
#8,205,894
of 25,292,646 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,838
of 8,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,704
of 316,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#78
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,646 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,530 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 316,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.