Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 459

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The cascade of care in diagnosis and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Alsdurf, Hannah, Hill, Philip C, Matteelli, Alberto, Getahun, Haileyesus, Menzies, Dick·2016·The Lancet Infectious Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND WHO estimates that a third of the world's population has latent tuberculosis infection and that less than 5% of those infected are diagnosed and treated to prevent tuberculosis. We aimed to systematically review studies that report the steps from initial tuberculosis screening through to treatment for latent tuberculosis infection, which we call the latent tuberculosis cascade of care. We specifically aimed to assess the number of people lost at each stage of the cascade. METHODS We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of study-level observational data. We searched MEDLINE (via OVID), Embase, and Health Star for observational studies, published between 1946 and April 12, 2015, that reported primary data for diagnosis and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection. We did meta-analyses using random and fixed effects analyses to identify percentages of patients with latent tuberculosis infection completing each step in the cascade. We also estimated pooled proportions in subgroups stratified by different characteristics of interest to assess risk factors for losses. RESULTS We identified 58 studies, describing 70 distinct cohorts and 748 572 people. Steps in the cascade associated with greater losses included completion of testing (71·9% [95% CI 71·8-72·0] of people intended for screening), completion of medical evaluation (43·7% [42·5-44·9]), recommendation for treatment (35·0% [33·8-36·4]), and completion of treatment if started (18·8% [16·3-19·7]). Steps with fewer losses included receiving test results, referral for evaluation if test positive, and accepting to start therapy if recommended. Factors associated with fewer losses were immune-compromising medical indications, being part of contact investigations, and use of rifamycin-based regimens. INTERPRETATION We identify major losses at several steps in the cascade of care for latent tuberculosis infection. Improvements in management of latent tuberculosis will need programmatic approaches to address the losses at each step in the cascade. FUNDERS Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1473-3099(16)30216-x

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 37 references

Cited by

See all 459

Metadata

Authors
Alsdurf, H., Hill, P. C., Matteelli, A., Getahun, H., & Menzies, D.
Venue
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-11
Volume
16
Issue
11
Pages
1269-1278
ISSN
1473-3099 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2516091697
Cited by
459
References
37
FWCI
6.93
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: The cascade of care in diagnosis and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1473-3099(16)30216-x
The paper
Alsdurf, H., Hill, P. C., Matteelli, A., Getahun, H., & Menzies, D. (2016). The cascade of care in diagnosis and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(16)30216-x

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.