Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of included studies

From: Community-based directly observed therapy (DOT) versus clinic DOT for tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative effectiveness

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%)