Evidence Hub

Incidental radiological findings during clinical tuberculosis screening in Lesotho and South Africa: a case series

N. Glaser, S. Bosman, T. Madonsela, A. van Heerden, Kamele Mashaete, Bulemba Katende, I. Ayakaka, K. Murphy et al.

Journal of Medical Case Reports, 2023

5 citations

Abstract

Background Chest X-ray offers high sensitivity and acceptable specificity as a tuberculosis screening tool, but in areas with a high burden of tuberculosis, there is often a lack of radiological expertise to interpret chest X-ray. Computer-aided detection systems based on artificial intelligence are therefore increasingly used to screen for tuberculosis-related abnormalities on digital chest radiographies. The CAD4TB software has previously been shown to demonstrate high sensitivity for chest X-ray tuberculosis-related abnormalities, but it is not yet calibrated for the detection of non-tuberculosis abnormalities. When screening for tuberculosis, users of computer-aided detection need to be aware that other chest pathologies are likely to be as prevalent as, or more prevalent than, active tuberculosis. However, non­-tuberculosis chest X-ray abnormalities detected during chest X-ray screening for tuberculosis remain poorly characterized in the sub-Saharan African setting, with only minimal literature. Case presentation In this case series, we report on four cases with non-tuberculosis abnormalities detected on CXR in TB TRIAGE + ACCURACY (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04666311), a study in adult presumptive tuberculosis cases at health facilities in Lesotho and South Africa to determine the diagnostic accuracy of two potential tuberculosis triage tests: computer-aided detection (CAD4TB v7, Delft, the Netherlands) and C-reactive protein (Alere Afinion, USA). The four Black…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free