MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6990380629

Delays in diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis, and patient care-seeking pathways in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2016· dissertation· en· W6990380629 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsInterquartile rangeData extractionSystematic samplingRandom effects modelSystematic reviewSample size determinationMEDLINEPatient data
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis and treatment is a cornerstone of the effective control of tuberculosis (TB), both in China and elsewhere. OBJECTIVES: To undertake a systematic review of the delay between the onset of TB symptoms and initiation of appropriate treatment, based on existing studies, and to summarize available information on patients' care-seeking behavior and the pathways to treatment in China. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by two independent reviewers. The median length and interquartile range (IQR) of the median delays reported by the primary studies were summarized. In addition, further estimates were made of the mean delay and variation of delay at an individual study level, based on known medians, sample sizes, and the IQR/range for each case. These results were used to pool the delay duration using a random effects mode. Finally, to meta-analyze care-seeking behaviors, a random effects model was deployed, using exact binomial likelihood. The review was reported according to the PRISMA standards. Subgroup analyses were conducted of data from different regions of China, urbanization level, and type of TB.RESULTS: A total of 94 studies were included in the final analysis. The median of length of the reported patient delay was 18 days (IQR = 10 to 23 days) and the pooled mean was 18.4 days (95% CI = 11.8 to 25 days, I2=0). The median length of diagnostic delay was 11 days (IQR = 5 to 24 days) with a pooled mean of 8.8 days (95% CI = 3.6 to 13.9 days, I2=19.8%). The figures for the median and pooled mean of total delay were 55.5 days (IQR = 43.8 to 64.3 days) and 52.5 days respectively (95% CI = -6.5 to 111.4 days, I2=0). There was significant variation identified in treatment patterns across China. The total patient delay in western China (85.2 days, 95% CI=23.8 to 146.7 days) was substantially longer than that in eastern China (17.4 days, 95% CI=10.4 to 24.4 days). Of the 64 studies that reported care-seeking behavior, 23 indicated that village clinics were used for initial health consultations and 36 indicated that general hospitals (county level and above) were the initial contact points. Importantly, 82.7% of patients, who initially sought care in general hospitals, were referred directly to TB dispensaries (95% CI = 51.2 to 95.6%), whereas the percentage was only 14.3% among patients who initially sought care in village clinics (95% CI = 6.1 to 63.2%). Overall, people who initially sought care in village clinics had a more complex route to take, before ultimate referral to TB dispensaries, visiting more healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the significant patient delay experienced by patients in western China and the complex pathways to care that confront TB patients in rural areas. Additionally, this is one of the first meta-analyses of median outcomes in this area that also considers estimations of mean and variation. As such, the pooled results using estimated mean and variation provide a useful indication of the strengths and limitations of this methodological approach. This methodological approach will be useful in identifying areas for research in future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.033
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→