Back

Sensitivity and specificity of tuberculosis screening tools in people with diabetes

Janrode, N.; HAMADA, Y.; Taliep, A.; Barron, L.; Chabaya, W.; Goliath, R. T.; Duong, T.; Jackson, A.; Galant, S.; Omar-Davies, N.; Sai, L. L.; Twentiey, L.; Wilkinson, R. J.; Rangaka, M. X.

2026-05-03 infectious diseases
10.64898/2026.04.30.26352192 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundSystematic screening for tuberculosis (TB) is recommended in people with diabetes; however, data on the accuracy of screening tools in this population are lacking. We assessed the accuracy of symptom and chest X-ray screening among people with diabetes. MethodsWe consecutively enrolled adults with diabetes attending routine care in South Africa. All participants underwent symptom screening and chest X-ray. A single sputum specimen was collected from all participants and tested by Xpert Ultra. A positive Xpert Ultra result was used as the reference standard. ResultsWe enrolled 673 participants. The median age was 54 years (interquartile range 47-60 years), and 63.8% were female. HIV prevalence was 17.2%. Prevalent TB was diagnosed in nine participants (1.33%). Any cough had a sensitivity of 22.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-60.0%) and a specificity of 97.5% (95%CI 96.0-98.6%). Expanding the symptom definition to include any of cough, fever, weight loss, or night sweats did not improve sensitivity (22.2 %, 95 % CI 2.1-60.0) and slightly reduced specificity to 96.0 % (95 % CI 94.2-97.0). Chest X-ray abnormalities suggestive of TB demonstrated a sensitivity of 55.6% (95%CI 21.2-86.3%) and a specificity of 95.4% (95%CI 93.4-97.0%). The specificity of chest X-ray was significantly lower in participants with prior TB (87.6%, 95% CI: 79.8-90.6%), compared to 97.2% (95% CI: 95.2-98.5%) in those without (p < 0.01). ConclusionSymptom-based TB screening has poor sensitivity in people with diabetes. Although chest X-ray improved the sensitivity, it remained suboptimal, with a reduced specificity in people with previous TB.

Matching journals

The top 6 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.