Sputum scarcity and respiratory sample availability among children with presumptive tuberculosis in high burden countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Summary Background Tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis typically relies on testing sputum samples, but children often cannot produce sputum. Our review investigated the collection of self-expectorated and induced sputum, and alternative methods of sampling including gastric and nasopharyngeal aspirates, among children evaluated for presumed TB in healthcare facilities. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and clinical trials databases from January 2010 to June 2024. Studies not reporting sufficient information on respiratory sampling or not conducted in high TB burden countries were excluded. Summary data was extracted, and the risk of bias was assessed. Sputum scarcity was defined as the proportion of children who could not provide a sample among those attempting. The pooled estimate of sputum scarcity was calculated by random effects meta-analysis. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023473882). Findings The search identified 6,751 records and 36 studies were included which enrolled 14,018 children from 14 high burden countries. Respiratory sampling methods varied by age. In children under 5, a pooled estimate of 4% (95% CI: 2-6%, n=5) provided self-expectorated sputum, but collection was not attempted routinely. In studies collecting one or two self-expectorated spot sputum samples in children 5 to 15 years, the pooled estimate of sputum scarcity was 38% (95%CI: 20-55%, n=6). Studies performing sputum induction assisted by nasopharyngeal suctioning in children under 15 had pooled scarcity of 3% (95% CI:0-6%, n=8). For studies performing gastric aspirates, the median proportion without a sample was 0.0% (95% CI: 0·0-0·8%, IQR: 0·0-2·0%, n=23). Interpretation Collecting respiratory samples in children with presumed TB is complex and age-dependent. Children, especially under 5, are often unable to produce self-expectorated sputum and depend on alternative methods, such as induction or gastric aspirates. TB diagnostics using samples that are easier to collect from children in resource-limited settings are needed. Funding Gates Foundation (INV-069540) Research in Context Evidence before this study Current diagnostics for tuberculosis (TB) rely on testing sputum samples, and patients unable to produce sputum at the time of evaluation may have a delayed or missed diagnosis. Children, especially those under 5 years of age, have difficulty producing sputum. There are no currently reliable estimates about how many children being evaluated for presumed TB are unable to produce a sputum sample (sputum scarce). Added value of this study This systematic review and meta-analysis included data from 36 studies and found that approximately 38% of children between 5 to 15 years of age with presumed TB could not produce one or two sputum samples at the time of evaluation. Alternative methods of respiratory sample collection, such as sputum induction and gastric aspirates, were effective in obtaining samples but are often not available in resource-limited settings. Implications of all the available evidence Sputum scarcity is common in children being evaluated for TB and alternative methods are necessary to collect respiratory samples. These results support the need to develop non-sputum TB diagnostics for children.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,022 | 0,059 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,024 | 0,043 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».