Authors and year of publication | Study location | Study design | Number of patients | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|
Kamolratanakul et al. 1999 [13] | Thailand, mixed urban/rural | RCT (DOT versus SAT) - for DOT arm supervisor self-selected. | 837 total in study. 415 randomised to DOT (provider type known for 410; 1 other did not receive DOT as allocated, 352 received DOT via family member), 422 randomised to SAT. | Treatment success: |
CB DOT: 27 of 34 (79%) | ||||
Clinic DOT: 21 of 24 (88%) | ||||
58 included in meta-analysis. | Loss to follow-up: | |||
CB DOT: 5 of 34 (15%) | ||||
Clinic DOT: 1 of 24 (4%) | ||||
Kironde and Meintjies 2002 [26] | South Africa, mixed urban/rural | Prospective cohort study | 769 total in study 50 transferred away from area and not included. 598 new patients (93 of these received SAT) and 121 retreatment patients (not included). | Treatment success: |
CB DOT: 164 of 228 (72%) | ||||
Clinic DOT: 189 of 277 (68%) | ||||
505 included in meta-analysis | Loss to follow-up: | |||
18.7% reported for the study overall but not broken down according to provider type. | ||||
Lwilla et al. 2003 [20] | Tanzania, rural | Open cluster RCT | 522 total in study and all included in meta-analysis. | Treatment success: |
CB DOT: 117 of 221 (53%) | ||||
Clinic DOT: 148 of 301 (49%) | ||||
Loss to follow-up: | ||||
CB DOT: 88 of 221 (40%). | ||||
Clinic DOT: 74 of 301 (25%). | ||||
Miti et al. 2003 [27] | Zambia, urban | Non-randomised trial | 168 total in study and all included in meta-analysis | Treatment success: |
CB DOT: 44 of 72 (61%) | ||||
Clinic DOT: 47 of 96 (49%) | ||||
Loss to follow-up: | ||||
CB DOT: 6 of 72 (8%) | ||||
Clinic DOT: 22 of 96 (23%) | ||||
Niazi and Al-Delaimi 2003 [28] | Iraq, urban | Non-randomised trial (sequential allocation to one treatment arm or the other) | 172 total in study and all included in meta-analysis | Treatment success: |
CB DOT: 72 of 86 (84%) | ||||
Clinic DOT: 59 of 86 (69%) | ||||
Loss to follow-up: | ||||
CB DOT: 10 of 86 (12%) | ||||
Clinic DOT: 9 of 86 (10%) | ||||
Nirupa et al. 2005 [31] | India, rural | Retrospective cohort study | 3019 total in study | Treatment success: |
2661 (88%) could be contacted for the study. Treatment results for only new sputum positive TB patients, N = 1131. 28 patients received SAT. Outreach workers (N = 238) excluded as neither CB DOT nor clinic DOT. | CB DOT: 526 of 666 (79%) | |||
Clinic DOT: 147 of 199 (74%) | ||||
865 included in meta-analysis | Loss to follow-up: | |||
CB DOT 92 of 666 (14%) | ||||
Clinic DOT: 34 of 199 (17%) | ||||
Singh et al. 2004 [29] | India, urban | Retrospective cohort study | 617 total in study and all included in meta-analysis | Treatment success: |
CB DOT: 110 of 141 (78%) | ||||
Clinic DOT: 367 of 476 (77%) | ||||
Loss to follow-up: | ||||
CB DOT: 21 of 141 (15%) | ||||
Clinic DOT: 69 of 476 (14%) | ||||
Tripathy et al. 2013 [30] | India, urban | Retrospective cohort study | 2099 total in study | Treatment success: |
Treatment cards of 1864 (89%) available for evaluation. Patients supervised by physicians (N = 95) removed from CB DOT results. | CB DOT: 475 of 509 (93%) | |||
Clinic DOT: 951 of 1260 (75%) | ||||
1769 included in meta-analysis | Loss to follow-up: | |||
CB DOT: 13 of 509 (3%) | ||||
Clinic DOT: 88 of 1260 (7%) |