MARATTO

article · medRxiv

Sensitivity and specificity of tuberculosis screening tools in people with diabetes

Abstract

Abstract Background Systematic 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. Methods We 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. Results We 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). Conclusion Symptom-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.

Research topics

  • Tuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
  • Infectious Diseases and Tuberculosis
  • Diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis

Sustainable Development Goals

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.64898/2026.04.30.26352192

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.