↓ Skip to main content

Community-based directly observed therapy (DOT) versus clinic DOT for tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative effectiveness

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
Title
Community-based directly observed therapy (DOT) versus clinic DOT for tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative effectiveness
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-0945-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cameron M Wright, Lenna Westerkamp, Sarah Korver, Claudia C Dobler

Abstract

Directly observed therapy (DOT), as recommended by the World Health Organization, is used in many countries to deliver tuberculosis (TB) treatment. The effectiveness of community-based (CB DOT) versus clinic DOT has not been adequately assessed to date. We compared TB treatment outcomes of CB DOT (delivered by community health workers or community volunteers), with those achieved through conventional clinic DOT. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies before 9 July 2014 comparing treatment outcomes of CB DOT and clinic DOT. The primary outcome was treatment success; the secondary outcome was loss to follow-up. Eight studies were included comparing CB DOT to clinic DOT, one a randomised controlled trial. CB DOT outperformed clinic DOT treatment success (pooled odds ratio (OR) of 1.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 - 2.36, p = 0.046, I(2) heterogeneity 84%). No statistically significant difference was found between the two DOT modalities for loss to follow-up (pooled OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.55, p = 0.62, I(2) 83%). Based on this systematic review, CB DOT has a higher treatment success compared to clinic DOT. However, as only one study was a randomised controlled trial, the findings have to be interpreted with caution.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sierra Leone 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 91 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 24%
Student > Bachelor 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Researcher 10 11%
Unspecified 10 11%
Other 26 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 18%
Unspecified 15 16%
Social Sciences 12 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Other 9 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 June 2015.
All research outputs
#2,379,383
of 5,180,561 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,211
of 2,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,996
of 161,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#30
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,180,561 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 51st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,726 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 161,021 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.