Can upper respiratory tract specimens be used to diagnose Tuberculosis?

NewsGuard 100/100 Score

In a recent study published in The Lancet Microbe, researchers evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of upper respiratory tract samples for active pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) compared to standard sputum or gastric aspirate testing.

Study: Accuracy of upper respiratory tract samples to diagnose Mycobacterium tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Image Credit: Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock.comStudy: Accuracy of upper respiratory tract samples to diagnose Mycobacterium tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Image Credit: Gorodenkoff/


Diagnosing pulmonary disease caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis is challenging due to limited testing access, sampling difficulties, and test sensitivity issues.

In 2021, over 4 million out of an estimated 10.6 million TB patients remained undiagnosed, with only 63% of those diagnosed with pulmonary TB confirmed bacteriologically. Bacterial confirmation is crucial for precise diagnosis and effective drug-resistant treatment.

While adults typically use sputum for diagnosis but can alternatively utilize urine, children, who often cannot produce sputum, can resort to alternatives such as induced sputum, nasopharyngeal aspirate, and gastric lavage.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently recommended stool as a sample for TB diagnosis, but there is a demand for patient-centered, easily accessible samples compatible with various tests.

Upper respiratory tract sampling, which is quick and minimally invasive, could improve diagnosis access, especially for those unable to produce sputum. Further research is crucial to refine these diagnostic methods to serve patient needs better.

About the study

The present systematic review and meta-analysis, following an online-published protocol, was conducted using the expertise of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine library.

Comprehensive searches were performed across databases such as Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Global Health, Cinahl, Web of Science, and Global Health Archive until December 2022.

Search criteria encompassed various terms related to TB and methods of upper respiratory tract sampling.

Compared to traditional methods, the research analyzed studies on the accuracy of upper respiratory tract sampling for TB diagnosis. It included cohort, cross-sectional, and controlled studies from various settings without language barriers, excluding studies not focused on active TB.

Upon gathering titles and abstracts, unrelated ones were excluded, and a subset was double-checked for consistency by another reviewer. Two independent reviewers determined the relevance of selected manuscripts, and a third settled any disagreements.

For non-English studies, translations were conducted, and data were extracted using a structured form; when manuscripts had multiple datasets, each was treated as a separate report.

For Analysis, data were summarized, and forest plots were created for different sampling methodologies. Using a hierarchical random effects model, pooled sensitivity and specificity were determined.

Meta-regression, accounting for two reference standards, was conducted, and diagnostic odds ratio, along with positive and negative likelihood ratios, were computed. For child studies, separate models using a combined reference standard were employed.

The study's registration was with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42021262392), and the risk of bias was gaged using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool.

Study results 

In the comprehensive research analysis, 9,680 studies were identified up to January 2021, and an additional 1364 were found with an extended search until December 2022. After removing duplicates, 10,159 studies remained, of which 71 were included in the systematic review.

This compilation incorporated reports on test comparisons, and a subset was included in meta-analyses. These studies differentiated upper respiratory tract sampling into four primary categories: nasopharyngeal aspirate, laryngeal swabs, oral swabs, and a miscellaneous group containing nasal swabs, mouthwash, saliva, and other mucosal or dental samples.

These studies span from May 1933, to December 2022, and originated from various countries, including the United Kingdom, South Africa, Norway, and more, with some nations only contributing a single study.

The data included 24,899 samples from diverse locations like clinics, hospitals, and sanatoriums, with some studies specifically targeting children and others focusing on adults. Among the demographic data, 57.7% of 3,173 participants were male, 42.3% were female, and 19.5% of 3,709 participants tested HIV positive.

Further insights reveal that 41 reports assessed the accuracy of laryngeal swabs. From May 1941 to March 1968, these studies showcased varying methodologies depending on the available technology.

Utilizing cultures of expectorated sputum or gastric lavage as the primary reference test, the Analysis revealed a specific level of sensitivity and specificity; however, meta-regression highlighted a notable variance in specificity, indicating significant inconsistency across the studies.

Nine studies conducted between November 1998 and May 2021, exclusively evaluated the accuracy of the nasopharyngeal aspirate in children. Different methodologies were employed, and a subsequent meta-regression, factoring the types of reference tests used, showed a significant difference in specificity.

Additionally, 18 studies looked into oral swab samplings compared to microbiological reference standards.

The Analysis of these studies between 2015 and 2022 pointed towards a certain sensitivity and specificity rate. Further meta-regression detected a significant impact on specificity based on the chosen reference standard.

Some studies analyzed alternative sample types, including mouthwash and saliva, but their number was limited and did not permit a complete meta-analysis.

Finally, older studies, especially those before 1950, lacked reporting on specific domains in evaluating the risk of bias. More recent studies also displayed high risk in participant selection due to diverse designs and varied reference standards.

Journal reference:
Susha Cheriyedath

Written by

Susha Cheriyedath

Susha is a scientific communication professional holding a Master's degree in Biochemistry, with expertise in Microbiology, Physiology, Biotechnology, and Nutrition. After a two-year tenure as a lecturer from 2000 to 2002, where she mentored undergraduates studying Biochemistry, she transitioned into editorial roles within scientific publishing. She has accumulated nearly two decades of experience in medical communication, assuming diverse roles in research, writing, editing, and editorial management.


Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

  • APA

    Cheriyedath, Susha. (2023, September 15). Can upper respiratory tract specimens be used to diagnose Tuberculosis?. News-Medical. Retrieved on June 13, 2024 from

  • MLA

    Cheriyedath, Susha. "Can upper respiratory tract specimens be used to diagnose Tuberculosis?". News-Medical. 13 June 2024. <>.

  • Chicago

    Cheriyedath, Susha. "Can upper respiratory tract specimens be used to diagnose Tuberculosis?". News-Medical. (accessed June 13, 2024).

  • Harvard

    Cheriyedath, Susha. 2023. Can upper respiratory tract specimens be used to diagnose Tuberculosis?. News-Medical, viewed 13 June 2024,


The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.

You might also like...
Progression of subtle CT abnormalities in smokers predicts acute respiratory disease