Prevalence of extrapulmonary tuberculosis in Indonesia: protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) is a significant public health issue in Indonesia, a country with a high tuberculosis burden. EPTB accounts for 15%-20% of global TB cases, with the proportion rising in populations co-infected with HIV. In Indonesia, estimates of EPTB prevalence vary significantly due to inconsistencies in diagnostic criteria, population demographics and methodologies. These variations highlight the need for a systematic review to synthesise existing evidence and provide a comprehensive understanding of EPTB's epidemiology in Indonesia. This study aims to consolidate findings from various studies to identify prevalence trends, inform public health strategies and address knowledge gaps in diagnosing and managing EPTB. METHODS: This systematic review will follow Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines and has been registered with PROSPERO (Registration Number: CRD42024601175). A comprehensive search will be conducted in databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus and Southeast Asian Index Medicus to identify studies published between 2005 and 2024. Inclusion criteria include observational studies reporting EPTB prevalence in Indonesia based on clinical, microbiological or radiological diagnoses. Two independent reviewers will conduct study selection, data extraction and quality assessments using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data will be analysed using a random-effects model to estimate pooled prevalence, and subgroup analyses will explore variability by region, age and clinical setting. The study selection process will be documented using a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram, and potential publication bias will be evaluated with funnel plots and the trim-and-fill method. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this review involves secondary analysis of published data, no ethical approval is required. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publications and conference presentations.
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 | 0.071 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.006 |
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".