The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Directly Observed Therapy for Treatment Completion of Pulmonary Tuberculosis<SUBTITLE>Consensus Statement of the Public Health Tuberculosis Guidelines Panel</SUBTITLE>
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate evidence on the relative effectiveness of directly observed therapy in achieving treatment completion for pulmonary tuberculosis. PARTICIPANTS: A panel of 11 practitioners representing the public health, behavioral, and clinical management of tuberculosis was convened by the Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice in 1995 to develop public health guidelines for tuberculosis treatment completion. EVIDENCE: English-language articles identified through MEDLINE (1966 to August 1, 1996) with original data on directly observed therapy, supervised therapy, compliance, treatment completion, case management, and treatment adherence for tuberculosis. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Each eligible article underwent structured review by at least 2 panel members for study design, sample size, evaluation methods, and treatment completion as the primary outcome. The full panel was convened twice, with intercurrent small group meetings, conference calls, and summary workshop to review findings. Recommendations made through this process were drafted by the panel chair and circulated twice for additional panel comments. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment completion rates for pulmonary tuberculosis are most likely to exceed 90%, as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, when treatment is based on a patient-centered approach using directly observed therapy with multiple enablers and enhancers. Other less intensive interventions, including nonsupervised strategies and modified approaches to directly observed therapy, are unlikely to achieve this recommended treatment completion goal. Directly observed therapy also appears to be cost-effective compared with self-administered therapy, although data on cost-effectiveness are limited.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies
Deeks, J., Dinnes, J., D'Amico, R., Sowden, A., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., Petticrew, M., & Altman, D. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7270 · Cited by 2,907
Frieden, T. R., Sterling, T. R., Munsiff, S. S., Watt, C. J., & Dye, C. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14333-4 · Cited by 689
Altice, F. L., Kamarulzaman, A., Soriano, V. V., Schechter, M., & Friedland, G. H. (2010) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60829-x · Cited by 504
Pachi, A., Bratis, D., Moussas, G., & Tselebis, A. (2013) · Tuberculosis Research and Treatment · doi:10.1155/2013/489865 · Cited by 185
Feasibility of an Ingestible Sensor-Based System for Monitoring Adherence to Tuberculosis Therapy
Belknap, R., Weis, S., Brookens, A., Au-Yeung, K. Y., Moon, G., DiCarlo, L., & Reves, R. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053373 · Cited by 160
Metadata
- Authors
- Chaulk, C. P.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1998-03-25
- Volume
- 279
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 943
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2167575493
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Directly Observed Therapy for Treatment Completion of Pulmonary Tuberculosis<SUBTITLE>Consensus Statement of the Public Health Tuberculosis Guidelines Panel</SUBTITLE>. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.279.12.943
- The paper
- Chaulk, C. P. (1998). Directly Observed Therapy for Treatment Completion of Pulmonary Tuberculosis<SUBTITLE>Consensus Statement of the Public Health Tuberculosis Guidelines Panel</SUBTITLE>. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.279.12.943
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.