↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Has the DOTS Strategy Improved Case Finding or Treatment Success? An Empirical Assessment

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
183 Mendeley
Title
Has the DOTS Strategy Improved Case Finding or Treatment Success? An Empirical Assessment
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2008
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0001721
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ziad Obermeyer, Jesse Abbott-Klafter, Christopher J. L. Murray

Abstract

Nearly fifteen years after the start of WHO's DOTS strategy, tuberculosis remains a major global health problem. Given the lack of empirical evidence that DOTS reduces tuberculosis burden, considerable debate has arisen about its place in the future of global tuberculosis control efforts. An independent evaluation of DOTS, one of the most widely-implemented and longest-running interventions in global health, is a prerequisite for meaningful improvements to tuberculosis control efforts, including WHO's new Stop TB Strategy. We investigate the impact of the expansion of the DOTS strategy on tuberculosis case finding and treatment success, using only empirical data.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 3 2%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Tunisia 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 170 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 26%
Researcher 28 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 13%
Student > Postgraduate 19 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 6%
Other 28 15%
Unknown 26 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 10%
Social Sciences 17 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Other 25 14%
Unknown 32 17%