The association of SARS-CoV-2 infection and tuberculosis disease with unfavorable treatment outcomes: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether SARS-CoV-2 infection and its management influence tuberculosis (TB) treatment outcomes is uncertain. We synthesized evidence on the association of SARS-CoV-2 coinfection (Coinfection Review) and its management (Clinical Management Review) on treatment outcomes among people with tuberculosis (TB) disease. METHODS: We systematically searched the literature from 1 January 2020 to 6 February 2022. Primary outcomes included: unfavorable (death, treatment failure, loss-to-follow-up) TB treatment outcomes (Coinfection and Clinical Management Review) and/or severe or critical COVID-19 or death (Clinical Management Review). Study quality was assessed with an adapted Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Data were heterogeneous and a narrative review was performed. An updated search was performed on April 3, 2023. FINDINGS: From 9,529 records, we included 11 studies and 7305 unique participants. No study reported data relevant to our review in their primary publication and data had to be contributed by study authors after contact. Evidence from all studies was low quality. Eight studies of 5749 persons treated for TB (286 [5%] with SARS-CoV-2) were included in the Coinfection Review. Across five studies reporting our primary outcome, there was no significant association between SARS-CoV-2 coinfection and unfavorable TB treatment outcomes. Four studies of 1572 TB patients-of whom 291 (19%) received corticosteroids or other immunomodulating treatment-were included in the Clinical Management Review, and two addressed a primary outcome. Studies were likely confounded by indication and discordant findings existed among studies. When updating our search, we still did not identify any study reporting data relevant to this review in their primary publication. INTERPRETATION: No study was designed to answer our research questions of interest. It remains unclear whether TB/SARS-CoV-2 and its therapeutic management are associated with unfavorable outcomes. Research is needed to improve our understanding of risk and optimal management of persons with TB and SARS-CoV-2 infection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42022309818).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".