The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Contact investigation for tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Investigation of contacts of patients with tuberculosis (TB) is a priority for TB control in high-income countries, and is increasingly being considered in resource-limited settings. This review was commissioned for a World Health Organization Expert Panel to develop global contact investigation guidelines. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies reporting the prevalence of TB and latent TB infection, and the annual incidence of TB among contacts of patients with TB. After screening 9,555 titles, we included 203 published studies. In 95 studies from low- and middle-income settings, the prevalence of active TB in all contacts was 3.1% (95% CI 2.2–4.4%, I 2 =99.4%), microbiologically proven TB was 1.2% (95% CI 0.9–1.8%, I 2 =95.9%), and latent TB infection was 51.5% (95% CI 47.1–55.8%, I 2 =98.9%). The prevalence of TB among household contacts was 3.1% (95% CI 2.1–4.5%, I 2 =98.8%) and among contacts of patients with multidrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant TB was 3.4% (95% CI 0.8–12.6%, I 2 =95.7%). Incidence was greatest in the first year after exposure. In 108 studies from high-income settings, the prevalence of TB among contacts was 1.4% (95% CI 1.1–1.8%, I 2 =98.7%), and the prevalence of latent infection was 28.1% (95% CI 24.2–32.4%, I 2 =99.5%). There was substantial heterogeneity among published studies. Contacts of TB patients are a high-risk group for developing TB, particularly within the first year. Children <5 yrs of age and people living with HIV are particularly at risk. Policy recommendations must consider evidence of the cost-effectiveness of various contact tracing strategies, and also incorporate complementary strategies to enhance case finding.
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
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 · Cited by 28,164
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700 · Cited by 17,648
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses
Riley, R. D., Higgins, J. P. T., & Deeks, J. J. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d549 · Cited by 2,884
Global tuberculosis control 2010
Behera, D. (2012) · The Indian Journal of Medical Research · Cited by 1,262
The stepped wedge trial design: a systematic review
Brown, C. A., & Lilford, R. J. (2006) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-54 · Cited by 907
Cited by
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
Building a tuberculosis-free world: The Lancet Commission on tuberculosis
Reid, M. J. A., Arinaminpathy, N., Bloom, A., Bloom, B. R., Boehme, C., Chaisson, R., Chin, D. P., Churchyard, G., Cox, H., Ditiu, L., et al. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)30024-8 · Cited by 361
What We Know About Tuberculosis Transmission: An Overview
Churchyard, G., Kim, P., Shah, N. S., Rustomjee, R., Gandhi, N., Mathema, B., Dowdy, D., Kasmar, A., & Cardenas, V. (2017) · The Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/infdis/jix362 · Cited by 341
Dodd, P. J., Yuen, C. M., Becerra, M. C., Revill, P., Jenkins, H. E., & Seddon, J. A. (2018) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(18)30401-7 · Cited by 74
Saavedra, B., Mambuque, E., Nguenha, D., Gomes, N., Munguambe, S., García, J. I., Izco, S., Acacio, S., Murias-Closas, A., Cossa, M., et al. (2021) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/13993003.00257-2021 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Fox, G. J., Barry, S. E., Britton, W. J., & Marks, G. B.
- Venue
- European Respiratory Journal
- Publisher
- European Respiratory Society (ERS)
- Published
- 2012-08-30
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 140-156
- ISSN
- 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
- 1399-3003
- OpenAlex
- W2112147097
- Cited by
- 709
- References
- 76
- FWCI
- 4.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Contact investigation for tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1183/09031936.00070812
- The paper
- Fox, G. J., Barry, S. E., Britton, W. J., & Marks, G. B. (2013). Contact investigation for tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00070812
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.
