4.7 Article

Yield of chest X-ray tuberculosis screening of immigrants during the European refugee crisis of 2015: a single-centre experience

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 27, 期 8, 页码 3244-3248

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-016-4684-9

关键词

Tuberculosis screening; European refugee crisis; Epidemiology; Pulmonary tuberculosis; Chest X-ray

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our aim was to determine the prevalence of tuberculosis (TB), the number needed to screen (NNS), and the diagnostic accuracy of chest X-ray (CXR) screening to detect active pulmonary TB during the 2015 European refugee crisis. We evaluated data of all refugees who underwent CXR screening in a single-centre of one German metropolitan area in 2015. We determined the prevalence of TB, NNS, and accuracy of CXR to detect active pulmonary TB. Reference method for active TB was the database of all definite TB cases registered at the Department of Public Health. A total of 17,487 immigrants underwent single-centre CXR screening in 2015; prevalence of definite pulmonary TB was 0.103%. The NNS for detecting one case of active pulmonary TB was 1749. CXR had a sensitivity of 55.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 30.8-78.5%) and a specificity 98.3% (CI 98.1-98.5%) to reveal one case of active TB. Our single-centre study indicates that chest X-ray screening for TB during the 2015 European refugee crisis was of low yield due the low prevalence of TB and high number needed to screen, thus implicating the need for improved screening algorithms adapted to the overwhelming number of refugees. aEuro cent Prevalence of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) among refugees in 2015 was low (0.103%). aEuro cent The number needed to screen to detect one case of active pulmonary TB was 1749. aEuro cent Tuberculosis X-ray screening resulted in a low sensitivity and high specificity. aEuro cent Tuberculosis X-ray screening during the European refugee crisis is of low yield. aEuro cent Improved screening algorithms are needed due to the overwhelming the number of refugees.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据