Back

Preferences for Tongue Swab versus Sputum Collection for Tuberculosis Testing: A Multi-Country Survey

Manoj, K.; Borkman, A.; Kim, A.; Crowder, R.; Ajide, B.; Ali-Francia, K.; Chirwa, M.; Kamulegeya, L.; Le, H.; Trung, V. N.; Venter, R.; Bimba, J.; Christopher, D. J.; Dalay, V.; Nguyen Van, H.; Theron, G.; Yu, C.; Zamudio-Fuertes, C.; Atim, J.; Kerkhoff, A.; Castro, M. d. M.; Nahid, P.; Denkinger, C.; Cattamanchi, A.; Dorman, S. E.; West, N. S.

2025-07-05 infectious diseases
10.1101/2025.07.04.25330895 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundSputum collection for tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis poses challenges for children, people living with HIV, and those who struggle with sputum production. Tongue swab-based molecular testing offers a promising non-invasive alternative, but person-centered research on acceptability is limited. MethodsWe conducted a pragmatic survey across eight countries (Vietnam, Philippines, South Africa, Nigeria, Zambia, India, Uganda, Peru) among people with presumptive TB attending primary care facilities. Participants provided both tongue swab and sputum samples, then completed a 5-10 minute survey about their collection preferences. ResultsFrom October 2023 to July 2024, 1,297 participants were enrolled (median age 43 years, 45% female, 13% HIV-positive). Overall, 61% (95% CI: 58-64%) preferred tongue swab collection compared to 22% (95% CI: 20-25%) who preferred sputum collection and 17% (95% CI: 15-19%) with no preference. Preference for tongue swab was consistent across demographic and clinical subgroups, with country-level variation ranging from 47% in South Africa to 74% in Zambia and Nigeria. ConclusionStrong preference for tongue swab over sputum collection among individuals with presumptive TB supports this diagnostic innovations potential to overcome barriers to timely TB testing, particularly for populations struggling with sputum production.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.