Background
Globally, children under 15 years represent approximately 12% of new tuberculosis cases, but 16% of the estimated 1.4 million deaths. This higher share of mortality highlights the urgent need to develop strategies to improve case detection in this age group and identify children without tuberculosis disease who should be considered for tuberculosis preventive treatment. One such strategy is systematic screening for tuberculosis in high‐risk groups.
Objectives
To estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the presence of one or more tuberculosis symptoms, or symptom combinations; chest radiography (CXR); Xpert MTB/RIF; Xpert Ultra; and combinations of these as screening tests for detecting active pulmonary childhood tuberculosis in the following groups.
– Tuberculosis contacts, including household contacts, school contacts, and other close contacts of a person with infectious tuberculosis.
– Children living with HIV.
– Children with pneumonia.
– Other risk groups (e.g. children with a history of previous tuberculosis, malnourished children).
– Children in the general population in high tuberculosis burden settings.
Search methods
We searched six databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase, on 14 February 2020 without language restrictions and contacted researchers in the field.
Selection criteria
Cross‐sectional and cohort studies where at least 75% of children were aged under 15 years. Studies were eligible if conducted for screening rather than diagnosing tuberculosis. Reference standards were microbiological (MRS) and composite reference standard (CRS), which may incorporate symptoms and CXR.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality using QUADAS‐2. We consolidated symptom screens across included studies into groups that used similar combinations of symptoms as follows: one or more of cough, fever, or poor weight gain and one or more of cough, fever, or decreased playfulness. For combination of symptoms, a positive screen was the presence of one or more than one symptom.
We used a bivariate model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and performed analyses separately by reference standard. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE.
Main results
Nineteen studies assessed the following screens: one symptom (15 studies, 10,097 participants); combinations of symptoms (12 studies, 29,889 participants); CXR (10 studies, 7146 participants); and Xpert MTB/RIF (2 studies, 787 participants). Several studies assessed more than one screening test. No studies assessed Xpert Ultra. For 16 studies (84%), risk of bias for the reference standard domain was unclear owing to concern about incorporation bias...