Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

This study found modest differences between tests in identifying individuals who would go on to develop active tuberculosis, but a two-step approach was the most cost-effective testing option.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Ibrahim Abubakar, Ajit Lalvani, Jo Southern, Alice Sitch, Charlotte Jackson, Oluchukwu Onyimadu, Marc Lipman, Jonathan J Deeks, Chris Griffiths, Graham Bothamley, Onn Min Kon, Andrew Hayward, Joanne Lord & Francis Drobniewski.

Ibrahim Abubakar 1,*, Ajit Lalvani 2, Jo Southern 3, Alice Sitch 4, Charlotte Jackson 1, Oluchukwu Onyimadu 5, Marc Lipman 6, Jonathan J Deeks 4, Chris Griffiths 7, Graham Bothamley 8, Onn Min Kon 9, Andrew Hayward 10, Joanne Lord 5, Francis Drobniewski 2

1 Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK
2 Tuberculosis Research Centre, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
3 National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK
4 Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
5 Southampton Health Technology Assessment Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
6 Respiratory Medicine, University College London, London, UK
7 Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
8 Homerton University Hospital, London, UK
9 Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
10 Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK
* Corresponding author Email:

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} . {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.


Responses to this report

No responses have been published.


If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions