The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Outcomes of Contact Investigations of Infectious Tuberculosis Patients
Open accessAbstract
The objective of this study was to describe outcomes of tuberculosis (TB) contact investigations, factors correlated with those outcomes, and current successes and ways to improve TB contact investigations. We abstracted clinic records of a representative U.S. urban sample of 1,080 pulmonary, sputum-smear(+) TB patients reported to CDC July 1996 through June 1997 and the cohort of their 6,225 close contacts. We found a median of four close contacts per patient. Fewer contacts were identified for homeless patients. A visit to the patient's residence resulted in two additional (especially child) contacts identified. Eighty-eight percent of eligible contacts received tuberculin skin tests (TSTs). Recording the last exposure date to the infectious patient facilitated follow-up TST provision. Thirty-six percent of contacts were TST(+). Household contacts and contacts to highly smear(+) or cavitary TB patients were most likely to be TST(+). Seventy-four percent of TST(+) contacts started treatment for latent TB infection (LTBI), of whom 56% completed. Sites using public health nurses (PHNs) started more high-risk TST(-) contacts on presumptive treatment for LTBI. Using directly observed treatment (DOT) increased the likelihood of treatment completion. We documented outcomes of contact investigation efforts by urban TB programs. We identified several successful practices, as well as suggestions for improvements, that will help TB programs target policies and procedures to enhance contact investigation effectiveness.
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
Lewinsohn, D. M., Leonard, M. K., LoBue, P. A., Cohn, D. L., Daley, C. L., Desmond, E., Keane, J., Lewinsohn, D. A., Loeffler, A. M., Mazurek, G. H., et al. (2017) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciw694 · Cited by 992
“In some reports, only 17%–37% of those eligible for LTBI therapy ultimately complete the treatment course, with higher rates of completion associated with shorter courses of therapy [20, 21].”
BackgroundContact investigation for tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Fox, G. J., Barry, S. E., Britton, W. J., & Marks, G. B. (2013) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/09031936.00070812 · Cited by 709
Alsdurf, H., Hill, P. C., Matteelli, A., Getahun, H., & Menzies, D. (2016) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(16)30216-x · Cited by 459
Tabuchi, T., Takatorige, T., Hirayama, Y., Nakata, N., Harihara, S., Shimouchi, A., Fujita, K., Yoshida, H., Tamura, Y., Nagai, T., et al. (2011) · BMC Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1186/1471-2334-11-22 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- MARKS, S. M., TAYLOR, Z., QUALLS, N. L., SHRESTHA-KUWAHARA, R. J., WILCE, M. A., & NGUYEN, C. H.
- Venue
- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-12-01
- Volume
- 162
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2033-2038
- ISSN
- 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
- 1535-4970
- OpenAlex
- W2111015704
- Cited by
- 260
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Outcomes of Contact Investigations of Infectious Tuberculosis Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/ajrccm.162.6.2004022
- The paper
- MARKS, S. M., TAYLOR, Z., QUALLS, N. L., SHRESTHA-KUWAHARA, R. J., WILCE, M. A., & NGUYEN, C. H. (2000). Outcomes of Contact Investigations of Infectious Tuberculosis Patients. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.162.6.2004022
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.