Talk:Latent tuberculosis

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Latent tuberculosis.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Risk of untreated TB

Prior to my edit, it said "The main risk is that approximately a quarter of these patients will go on to develop active tuberculosis at a later stage of their life." I changed "a quarter" to "10%" to agree with the Wikipedia article Tuberculosis treatment, which says "The reason for treating people with LTBI is to prevent them progressing to active TB disease later in life (approximately 10% lifetime risk)." The lower figure appears commonly in the literature off Wikipedia. Anomalocaris (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

US guidelines for BCG

I question the neutrality of this section: "In particular, US recommendation is that prior BCG vaccination be ignored in the interpretation of tuberculin skin tests, which means that many more people (particularly foreign nationals who will almost all have had BCG) who have nothing wrong with them will end up having unnecessary treatment with potentially toxic drugs. There are two reasons for this: (1) people who have previously had BCG (even may years ago) may still have a false positive Mantoux test, and (2) serial testing with tuberculin skin tests boosts the immunological response in those people who have previously had BCG, so these people will falsely appear to be tuberculin converters." It fails to address the fact that BCG is not fully protective, less protective in adults than pediatric, and in areas where QFT is not widely available or cost-effective, the concern over missing an LTBI is great enough that the benefits are considered to outweigh the risks in generally low-prevalence areas such as the USA.

I concur. The article, as written, seems a bit biased. How does the following sound:

Given that the US recommendation is that prior BCG vaccination be ignored in the interpretation of tuberculin skin tests, false positives are possible as a result of: (1) people who have previously had BCG (even may years ago) may still have a false positive Mantoux test, and (2) serial testing with tuberculin skin tests boosts the immunological response in those people who have previously had BCG, so these people will falsely appear to be tuberculin converters. This may lead to treating more people than necessary, with the possible risk of those patients suffering adverse drug reactions. However, as Bacille_Calmette-Guérin vaccine is not 100% effective, and is less protective in adults than pediatric patients, not treating these patients could lead to a possible infection. The current US policy seems to a reflect a desire to err on the side of safety (of the general public).

PS. Please sign all your contributions in the future. Cheers, --bfigura ^(talk) 04:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change implemented, and section detagged. bfigura ^(talk) 17:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of regimens

This meta-analysis compares regimens and advocates rifamycin-containing treatment protocols: doi:10.7326/M14-1019 JFW | T@lk 09:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Latent tuberculosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131021150709/http://health.nytimes.com:80/health/guides/test/ppd-skin-test to http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/test/ppd-skin-test/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment

Review in Annals of Internal Medicine - doi:10.7326/M17-0609 JFW | T@lk 08:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemiology

Epidemiology is given for active TB while the article is about latent TB. Epidemiology of latent TB is very different: from 20% to 90% people are infected depending on country. COM-03 (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]