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

1
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.2%
2
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 1%
8.7%
3
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
5.0%
4
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.4%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 35%
4.1%
6
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.7%
7
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
50% of probability mass above
8
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.1%
9
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
10
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.1%
11
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.9%
12
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.9%
13
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
14
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
15
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
16
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
17
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
18
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
19
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
20
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
21
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.4%
22
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
23
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
24
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
25
Tropical Medicine & International Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
26
The Lancet Microbe
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
27
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
28
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
29
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
30
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%