Diagnostic Yield of Tongue Swab- Compared to Sputum-Based Molecular Testing for Tuberculosis in Four High-Burden Countries
Clinical Infectious Diseases·
- DOI
- 10.1093/cid/ciag077
- PMID
- 41804811
- PMCID
- PMC13131914
- OpenAlex
- W7134831963
- Study type
- Cross-sectional study
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Article type
- journal-article
- Integrity
- current
Why this research matters now
Tongue swab-based molecular testing achieved non-inferior diagnostic yield compared to sputum-based methods and may offer a cost-efficient alternative where sputum collection is difficult or where smear microscopy remains the primary diagnostic approach.
Structured evidence summary
Research question
The study evaluated whether tongue swab-based molecular testing could achieve diagnostic yield similar to sputum-based molecular testing for tuberculosis detection.
Study design
Cross-sectional study conducted from July 2024 to January 2025 across health centers in the Philippines, Vietnam, Uganda, and Zambia. Consecutive people with presumptive TB provided tongue swabs tested with the MiniDock MTB Test, and were referred for routine sputum collection tested using WHO-recommended molecular methods per national guidelines.
Population and setting
The study enrolled 1639 participants with presumptive tuberculosis, of whom 51.9% were female, 25.3% had HIV, and 8.1% were children under 5 years. Participants were recruited from health centers in four high-burden countries.
Main findings
All 1639 participants provided tongue swabs, while only 84.7% produced sputum. Diagnostic yield was 3.8% for tongue swab testing and 4.1% for sputum-based testing, with a difference of 0.3% (95% CI −0.6 to +1.2) falling within the prespecified 3.0% non-inferiority margin. Results remained consistent across countries and key subgroups including age, sex, and HIV status.
Public-health relevance
Tongue swab-based molecular testing achieved non-inferior diagnostic yield compared to sputum-based methods and may offer a cost-efficient alternative where sputum collection is difficult or where smear microscopy remains the primary diagnostic approach.
Important limitations
This summary relies on the supplied single-article abstract and bibliographic metadata. Full interpretation of study limitations, potential biases, generalizability constraints, and clinical applicability requires review of the complete published manuscript.
GIDS interpretation
The article was classified under Tuberculosis and Diagnostics topics with links to five countries including four study sites. This metadata supports discoverability within TB diagnostic literature but does not establish connection to active surveillance signals.
Related GIDS surveillance
Literature context does not validate, explain, or change a surveillance signal. Exact and contextual relationships are shown separately.
Evidence relationships
This article has 5 auditable classifier relationships to diseases, places, topics, and study design.