An updated systematic review and meta-analysis for treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to update the current evidence for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treatment. We searched for studies that reported treatment information and clinical characteristics for at least 25 patients with microbiologically confirmed pulmonary MDR-TB and either end of treatment outcomes, 6-month culture conversion or severe adverse events (SAEs). We assessed the association of these outcomes with patients' characteristics or treatment parameters. We identified 74 studies, including 17 494 participants. The pooled treatment success was 26% in extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB) patients and 60% in MDR-TB patients. Treatment parameters such as number or duration and individual drugs were not associated with improved 6-month sputum culture conversion or end of treatment outcomes. However, MDR-TB patients that received individualised regimens had higher success than patients who received standardised regimens (64% versus 52%; p<0.0.01). When reports from 20 cohorts were pooled, proportions of SAE ranged from 0.5% attributed to ethambutol to 12.2% attributed to para-aminosalicylic acid. The lack of significant associations of treatment outcomes with specific drugs or regimens may reflect the limitations of pooling the data rather than a true lack of differences in efficacy of regimens or individual drugs. This analysis highlights the need for stronger evidence for treatment of MDR-TB from better-designed and reported studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".