Author
Listed:
- Katherine C Horton
- Peter MacPherson
- Rein M G J Houben
- Richard G White
- Elizabeth L Corbett
Abstract
Background: Tuberculosis (TB) case notification rates are usually higher in men than in women, but notification data are insufficient to measure sex differences in disease burden. This review set out to systematically investigate whether sex ratios in case notifications reflect differences in disease prevalence and to identify gaps in access to and/or utilisation of diagnostic services. Methods and Findings: In accordance with the published protocol (CRD42015022163), TB prevalence surveys in nationally representative and sub-national adult populations (age ≥ 15 y) in low- and middle-income countries published between 1 January 1993 and 15 March 2016 were identified through searches of PubMed, Embase, Global Health, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; review of abstracts; and correspondence with the World Health Organization. Random-effects meta-analyses examined male-to-female (M:F) ratios in TB prevalence and prevalence-to-notification (P:N) ratios for smear-positive TB. Meta-regression was done to identify factors associated with higher M:F ratios in prevalence and higher P:N ratios. Eighty-three publications describing 88 surveys with over 3.1 million participants in 28 countries were identified (36 surveys in Africa, three in the Americas, four in the Eastern Mediterranean, 28 in South-East Asia and 17 in the Western Pacific). Fifty-six surveys reported in 53 publications were included in quantitative analyses. Overall random-effects weighted M:F prevalence ratios were 2.21 (95% CI 1.92–2.54; 56 surveys) for bacteriologically positive TB and 2.51 (95% CI 2.07–3.04; 40 surveys) for smear-positive TB. M:F prevalence ratios were highest in South-East Asia and in surveys that did not require self-report of signs/symptoms in initial screening procedures. The summary random-effects weighted M:F ratio for P:N ratios was 1.55 (95% CI 1.25–1.91; 34 surveys). We intended to stratify the analyses by age, HIV status, and rural or urban setting; however, few studies reported such data. Conclusions: TB prevalence is significantly higher among men than women in low- and middle-income countries, with strong evidence that men are disadvantaged in seeking and/or accessing TB care in many settings. Global strategies and national TB programmes should recognise men as an underserved high-risk group and improve men’s access to diagnostic and screening services to reduce the overall burden of TB more effectively and ensure gender equity in TB care. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, Katherine Horton and colleagues examine the differences in tuberculosis burden and notifications between men and women living in low- and middle-income countries.Why Was This Study Done?: What Did the Researchers Do and Find?: What Do These Findings Mean?:
Suggested Citation
Katherine C Horton & Peter MacPherson & Rein M G J Houben & Richard G White & Elizabeth L Corbett, 2016.
"Sex Differences in Tuberculosis Burden and Notifications in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,"
PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-23, September.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002119
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002119
Download full text from publisher
Most related items
These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
- Ashutosh N Aggarwal & Dheeraj Gupta & Ritesh Agarwal & Sunil Sethi & Jarnail S Thakur & Sharada M Anjinappa & Vineet K Chadha & Rajesh Kumar & Meera Sharma & Digambar Behera & Surinder K Jindal, 2015.
"Prevalence of Pulmonary Tuberculosis among Adults in a North Indian District,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-8, February.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002119. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.