Evidence Hub

Sputum processing methods to improve the sensitivity of smear microscopy for tuberculosis: a systematic review

Steingart KR, Ng V, Henry M, Hopewell PC, Ramsay A, Cunningham J, Urbanczik R, Perkins MD et al.

The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 2006

Abstract

In low-income and middle-income countries, direct (unconcentrated) sputum smear microscopy is the primary method for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis. The method is fast, inexpensive, and specific for Mycobacterium tuberculosis in high incidence areas. The main limitations of direct microscopy are its relatively low sensitivity, especially in individuals co-infected with HIV, and variable quality of the test in programme conditions. Thus, there is a need to identify methods to improve the sensitivity of microscopy. Physical and chemical sputum processing methods, including centrifugation, sedimentation, and bleach, have been studied and found to show promise. We did a systematic review to assess the ability of different processing methods to improve the sensitivity of microscopy. By searching many sources, we identified 83 studies. Overall, by comparison with direct smears, the results suggested that centrifugation with any of several chemical methods (including bleach) is more sensitive, that overnight sedimentation preceded by chemical processing is more sensitive, and that specificity is similar. There were insufficient data to determine the value of sputum processing methods in patients with HIV infection. Operational studies are needed to determine whether the increased sensitivity provided by processing methods is sufficient to offset their increased cost, complexity, and potential biohazards, and to examine their feasibility.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

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