IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0042479.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research Questions and Priorities for Tuberculosis: A Survey of Published Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Author

Listed:
  • Ioana Nicolau
  • Daphne Ling
  • Lulu Tian
  • Christian Lienhardt
  • Madhukar Pai

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews are increasingly informing policies in tuberculosis (TB) care and control. They may also be a source of questions for future research. As part of the process of developing the International Roadmap for TB Research, we did a systematic review of published systematic reviews on TB, to identify research priorities that are most frequently suggested in reviews. Methodology/Principal Findings: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on any aspect of TB published between 2005 and 2010. One reviewer extracted data and a second reviewer independently extracted data from a random subset of included studies. In total, 137 systematic reviews, with 141 research questions, were included in this review. We used the UK Health Research Classification System (HRCS) to help us classify the research questions and priorities. The three most common research topics were in the area of detection, screening and diagnosis of TB (32.6%), development and evaluation of treatments and therapeutic interventions (23.4%), and TB aetiology and risk factors (19.9%). The research priorities determined were mainly focused on the discovery and evaluation of bacteriological TB tests and drug-resistant TB tests and immunological tests. Other important topics of future research were genetic susceptibility linked to TB and disease determinants attributed to HIV/TB. Evaluation of drug treatments for TB, drug-resistant TB and HIV/TB were also frequently proposed research topics. Conclusions: Systematic reviews are a good source of key research priorities. Findings from our survey have informed the development of the International Roadmap for TB Research by the TB Research Movement.

Suggested Citation

  • Ioana Nicolau & Daphne Ling & Lulu Tian & Christian Lienhardt & Madhukar Pai, 2012. "Research Questions and Priorities for Tuberculosis: A Survey of Published Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-1, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0042479
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042479
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042479
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042479&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0042479?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pone00:0042479. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.