↓ Skip to main content

Investigating the impact of TB case-detection strategies and the consequences of false positive diagnosis through mathematical modelling

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Investigating the impact of TB case-detection strategies and the consequences of false positive diagnosis through mathematical modelling
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12879-018-3239-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marek Lalli, Matthew Hamilton, Carel Pretorius, Debora Pedrazzoli, Richard G. White, Rein M. G. J. Houben

Abstract

Increasing case notifications is one of the top programmatic priorities of National TB Control Programmes (NTPs). To find more cases, NTPs often need to consider expanding TB case-detection activities to populations with increasingly low prevalence of disease. Together with low-specificity diagnostic algorithms, these strategies can lead to an increasingly high number of false positive diagnoses, which has important adverse consequences. We apply TIME, a widely-used country-level model, to quantify the expected impact of different case-finding strategies under two scenarios. In the first scenario, we compare the impact of implementing two different diagnostic algorithms (higher sensitivity only versus higher sensitivity and specificity) to reach programmatic screening targets. In the second scenario, we examine the impact of expanding coverage to a population with a lower prevalence of disease. Finally, we explore the implications of modelling without taking into consideration the screening of healthy individuals. Outcomes considered were changes in notifications, the ratio of additional false positive to true positive diagnoses, the positive predictive value (PPV), and incidence. In scenario 1, algorithm A of prolonged cough and GeneXpert yielded fewer additional notifications compared to algorithm B of any symptom and smear microscopy (n = 4.0 K vs 13.8 K), relative to baseline between 2017 and 2025. However, algorithm A resulted in an increase in PPV, averting 2.4 K false positive notifications thus resulting in a more efficient impact on incidence. Scenario 2 demonstrated an absolute decrease of 11% in the PPV as intensified case finding activities expanded into low-prevalence populations without improving diagnostic accuracy, yielding an additional 23 K false positive diagnoses for an additional 1.3 K true positive diagnoses between 2017 and 2025. Modelling the second scenario without taking into account screening amongst healthy individuals overestimated the impact on cases averted by a factor of 6. Our findings show that total notifications can be a misleading indicator for TB programme performance, and should be interpreted carefully. When evaluating potential case-finding strategies, NTPs should consider the specificity of diagnostic algorithms and the risk of increasing false-positive diagnoses. Similarly, modelling the impact of case-finding strategies without taking into account potential adverse consequences can overestimate impact and lead to poor strategic decision-making.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 20%
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 17 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 14%
Social Sciences 6 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 19 37%
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 23 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,616,159
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,302
of 7,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,225
of 330,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#100
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,931 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 330,828 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.