DRUG-RESISTANT TUBERCULOSIS CASE-FINDING STRATEGIES: A SCOPING REVIEW PROTOCOL

Defining the research question

The question for our review is: what literature is available on drug-resistant TB case finding and which case-finding strategies are described? We will look at studies that have sought to improve drug-resistant TB case detection.

Identifying relevant studies

We will use the following eligibility criteria:

Inclusion criteria

• Participants

  Participants can be any age or gender. They can be people receiving an intervention or providers of an intervention.

• Concept

  Intervention strategies aiming to improve or enhance participants’ pathway(s) to drug-resistant TB case detection specifically. Intervention strategies aiming to improve TB case finding in general and only report on the yield of drug-resistant TB cases will be excluded.

• Context

  Studies conducted at primary care, secondary care, tertiary care or community settings. We will exclude studies that are purely laboratory based, but will include studies where screening of sputum samples is part of an intervention to improve drug-resistant TB case finding.

• Study designs

  Systematic reviews, excluding narrative reviews. Primary studies irrespective of study design. Qualitative studies, where the experiences of individuals who receive the intervention or those who provide the intervention are investigated. We will include studies of diagnostic test accuracy if the study describes a drug-resistant TB screening strategy and we will include trials comparing different screening or diagnostic tools within case-finding interventions. We will exclude prevalence surveys, except if the survey includes an intervention strategy to find drug-resistant TB cases specifically. We will exclude editorials, opinion articles, meeting summaries and guidelines.

We will search the academic databases of Medline (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), The Cochrane Library, Africa-Wide Information (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Epistemonikos and PROSPERO using no language or date restrictions. Reference lists of included studies will be searched.

The preliminary search string will include combinations of the following three domains:

• terms related to “tuberculosis”

• terms related to “drug resistance”

• terms related to “case finding”, “case detection”, “screening”, “contact investigation” and “contact tracing”

Appropriate MesH terms will be added to the different databases. The search strategy will be piloted and refined in consultation with an information specialist. We will also contact experts working in the field to collect information about ongoing primary research or relevant research missed by the electronic search.

Study selection

We will use Rayyan systematic review software ¹² to screen titles, abstracts and full text articles. Four reviewers (SvW, MN, LV and MC) will screen abstracts in duplicate for inclusion. They will resolve conflicts via discussion and meet at the beginning and midpoint of abstract screening to discuss challenges and possible refinement of the search strategy. Three reviewers (SvW, LV and MN) will then screen full text articles for inclusion. Disagreements will be resolved with a third reviewer (MC) to determine final inclusion.

Charting the data

We will develop a data extraction form in excel. The data extraction form will be applied to all primary research reports to collect standard information on each study. Information will include:

• Authors, journal, year of publication

• Aim/purpose of the research

• Study design

• Country: income, TB prevalence, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence; urban/rural setting

• Participants: age, sex, HIV status, other reported risk factors

• Target group and how the group was identified if applicable

• Intervention(s): All components (activities) of the intervention, type(s) of providers and screening and diagnostic tools used

• Treatment support, including preventive therapy

• Outcomes assessed

Five authors (SvW, MN, LV, MC and GH) will extract data, one author per paper. A second reviewer (SvW/MC) will check extracted data from each study. The data extraction team and other co-authors will meet regularly after each 5-10 studies to determine whether their approach is consistent and in line with the research question.

Collating, summarizing and reporting the results

We will provide a narrative report with supporting figures and/or tables to summarize the data. Table 1 contains definitions we will use in charting, collating, summarizing and reporting our results.

A systems-based logic model developed from a synthesis of drug-susceptible TB case-finding strategies (Figure 1) will be used as a framework to describe different strategies and resulting pathways. Enhancements of pathways will also be described and may include enhanced care seeking (e.g. health promotion), improved access to care for those seeking care (e.g. mobile clinics), improved access to TB screening (e.g. incentives), improved identification of presumptive TB by health workers (e.g. training of health workers, incentives) and improved access to TB diagnostic services for individuals identified with presumptive TB (e.g. transport, sputum collection in the community, mobile laboratory). For screening pathways we will report on target groups and screening and diagnostic tools used. Quality appraisal will not be conducted, because this is a scoping review and our interest is in the existing evidence base, regardless of study design and quality.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: A systems-based logic model depicting types of services and associated pathways to TB case detection

The model distinguishes six pathways to TB case detection, namely two care-seeking pathways (green and black dashed lines) and four screening pathways (green, blue, orange and grey solid lines). People perceiving themselves to have a health problem and access general health services, follow the general care-seeking pathway where a provider can identify presumptive TB on routine assessment, i.e., history taking and clinical examination, of an individual patient (green dashed line). People perceiving themselves to have TB symptoms may also follow the specific TB care-seeking pathway to TB diagnostic services, where all people accessing care are evaluated for possible active TB (black dashed line). People invited to TB services regardless of symptoms follow TB screening pathways and may be identified with presumptive TB even if they do not seek care for TB symptoms. Four screening pathways are distinguished: TB screening offered to all people accessing general health services (green solid line), dedicated TB screening services at a health facility or mobile clinic with open invitation to a whole population or TB contacts (blue solid line), TB screening offered to target group members at home, work or school (orange solid line) and TB screening offered to people living with HIV linked to care (grey solid line). A person who screens positive on the TB screening pathway is identified as a presumptive TB case and should receive confirmation of a diagnosis by accessing TB diagnostic services.

Strengths and limitations

Our multidisciplinary review team consists of researchers with extensive experience in TB related research and the conduct of systematic reviews and qualitative evidence synthesis. Their experience would be invaluable in collating and summarizing diverse literature in a sensible way. Another strength is the use of a systems-based logic model that was developed from a synthesis of drug-susceptible TB case-finding strategies. The model will help us to construct meaningful pathway descriptions for possible comparisons in future research and to assess whether drug-resistant TB case-finding pathways are similar to drug-susceptible pathways.

One limitation to the review is the diverse and inconsistent use of intervention terminology within the literature, which may result in missing relevant studies. Although we cannot overcome this problem in full, we will work with an information specialist to pilot and optimize our search strategy and we will discuss potential refinement of our search at regular meetings during the screening phase. Poor reporting of intervention strategies may also cause misunderstanding and misclassification of interventions. However, we do not assess effectiveness as an outcome and therefore bias due to misclassification will be a minor issue. Lastly, drug-resistant TB case-finding strategies may not fit into a model developed from drug-susceptible strategies. Nevertheless, such a situation will provide an opportunity to refine the model for future research.

Conclusion

This scoping review will chart the existing body of literature on drug-resistant TB case-finding strategies and will guide further research to inform decisions on drug-resistant TB case finding policy and practice.