Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Tuberculosis among correctional facility workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Introduction

Prison inmates can transmit tuberculosis, including drug-resistant strains, to correctional facility workers and the community. In this systematic literature review, we investigated the magnitude of active and latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) and associated risk factors among correctional facility workers.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Cochrane CENTRAL, ISI Web of Science, CINAHL, and SCOPUS databases (January 1, 1989–December 31, 2017) for studies with the MeSH terms “prison” (and similar) AND “tuberculosis”, without language restriction. We searched for gray literature in Google Scholar and conference proceedings. Stratified analyses according to tuberculosis burden were performed.

Results

Of the 974 titles identified, 15 (nine good, six fair quality) fulfilled the inclusion criteria (110,393 correctional facility workers; six countries; 82,668 active tuberculosis; 110,192 LTBI). Pooled LTBI prevalence and incidence rates were 26% (12–42, I2 = 99.0%) and 2% (1–3, I2 = 98.6%), respectively. LTBI prevalence reached 44% (12–79, I2 = 99.0%) in high-burden countries. Active tuberculosis was reported only in low-burden countries (incidence range, 0.61–450/10,000 correctional facility workers/year). LTBI-associated risk factors included job duration, older age, country of birth, current tobacco smoking, reported contact with prisoners, and BCG vaccination.

Conclusion

Despite the risk of bias and high heterogeneity, LTBI was found to be prevalent in correctional facility workers, mainly in high-burden countries. LTBI risk factors suggest both occupational and community exposure. Active tuberculosis occurrence in low-burden countries suggests higher vulnerability from recent infection among correctional facility workers in these countries. Systematic surveillance and infection control measures are necessary to protect these highly vulnerable workers.

Citation: Grenzel ML, Grande AJ, Paniago AMM, Pompilio MA, Oliveira SMdVLd, Trajman A (2018) Tuberculosis among correctional facility workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 13(11): e0207400. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207400

Editor: Olalekan Uthman, The University of Warwick, UNITED KINGDOM

Received: August 3, 2018; Accepted: October 30, 2018; Published: November 15, 2018

Copyright: © 2018 Grenzel et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases worldwide, with 10.4 million new cases and 1.3 million deaths in 2016 [1]. In particular, TB management has become increasingly challenging in inmates of correctional facilities, wherein TB prevalence can be as high as 1,913/100,000 population, with incidence of up to 70/100,000 population/year [2]. The prevalence of latent TB infection (LTBI) among inmates can increase by approximately 5% every year [3], suggesting that there is a high risk of transmission in prisons. Occupational exposure was responsible for recently acquired LTBI in one-third of New York State prison employees [4]. In a TB outbreak in Madrid, Spain, 23% of all cases, including 38 inmates and five employees, were caused by the same strain, according to molecular epidemiological analyses [5].

TB in inmates may also be responsible for transmission to the community. Up to 54% of Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains in the community are similar to those found in prisons [6]. Similarly, TB transmission to correctional facility workers (CFW) has also been documented [7–21]. The magnitude of the epidemics in this population, however, varies significantly. While data on burden of TB among inmates is available, data on burden among CFW are only available from individual studies. Moreover, since longitudinal studies are time consuming, labor intensive and expensive, prevalence studies are more likely to be conducted in resource-constrained settings and provide information on LTBI burden. A systematic review on the current burden of LTBI among CFW in high- and low-burden countries would provide evidence of existing occupational risk of infection in prison facilities settings, raise awareness among CFW to adopt and practice necessary infection control measures, and guide policy makers to explore and implement necessary prevention and control measures to reduce disease burden. Because TB is a preventable disease, and prevention is one of the cornerstones of the END TB Strategy [22], it is important to identify populations at high risk for recent LTBI and active TB. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the pooled prevalence and incidence of LTBI and active TB among CFW, as well as their associated risk factors.

Materials and methods

The study protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews–CRD42016048858. Ethical approval was not necessary, since all data are publicly available. The current report follows the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [23].

Search strategy

We searched the MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE (through Elsevier), LILACS (through BVS), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ISI Web of Science, CINAHL (through EBSCO), and SCOPUS databases for studies published between January 1, 1989 and December 31, 2017, without language restriction. We searched for gray literature in Google Scholar and congress abstract books. We also searched for relevant studies in the reference lists of articles included in the review. MeSH terms were used for the searches were “tuberculosis” and “prison” (and its synonyms). The search strategy was adapted for each database and is detailed in the supplement material (S1 Table).

Study selection, inclusion criteria, and data extraction

Identified titles were imported to EndNote online, and duplicated studies were removed. The remaining titles were independently reviewed by two authors (MLG and SMVLO), who selected abstracts from articles, with no language restriction. The same authors independently selected full texts from the abstract list. Divergence was resolved by consensus. Observational (including cross-sectional, retrospective, and longitudinal) or experimental studies were eligible, regardless of the population size, if they tested CFW in any sector (security, administration, or healthcare workers). Studies that considered bacteriologically confirmed or clinical-radiological diagnoses of active TB were included. For LTBI diagnosis, we included studies that used either the tuberculin skin test (TST) or interferon-gamma release assays (IGRA). Cut-off values for prevalence and TST conversion were those considered by authors. We excluded studies in which more than one population was described and in which it was not possible to extract or calculate the indicators of interest. We included studies that reported prevalence/incidence rates or allowed the calculation of these variables by providing the necessary data.

Data pooling and statistical analyses

Pooled prevalence and incidence of active TB and LTBI, and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated with STATA software (STATA/SE 12.1, StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) using random effects models. I2 values of 25–49%, 50–74%, and ≥75% were considered to represent low, moderate, and high levels of heterogeneity [24], respectively.

Sources of heterogeneity were explored using sensitivity analyses. Analyses were performed by removing studies with less than 100 participants, and subgroup analyses were conducted according to diagnostic criteria and the country’s TB burden [1].

Quality of study methods

For quality evaluation, we used the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-sectional Studies of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [25], which evaluates the internal validity of studies. Each study was assessed for 14 criteria: the research question or objective, the study population, the participation rate of eligible persons, individuals selected or recruited from the same or similar populations, sample size justification, exposure(s) of interest measured before outcome, sufficient deadline, different levels of exposure to outcome, exposure measurement (independent variables) clearly defined, blinded as to the exposure status of participants, follow-up, main potential confounders measured and statistically adjusted. Studies were classified as good, fair, or poor if they fulfilled ≥12, 5–11, and < 5 criteria, respectively.

Publication bias

Publication bias and small study effect were evaluated using funnel plot analysis [24] when ≥10 studies were included.

Results

We identified 3028 titles: 3019 from the databases and nine through additional searches. After removing duplicates, 974 titles remained, of which 948 abstracts were excluded because they did not analyze TB or LTBI among CFW. Of the 26 abstracts retained for full text reading, 11 studies were further excluded: three could not be found even after contacting the author(s) [26–28] and eight did not allow calculation of prevalence or incidence in the population of interest [29–36]. Thus, 15 studies were included in this review and 14 in the meta-analysis (S1 Fig).

Study and population characteristics

The 15 studies were published between 1989 and 2017 (latest data collection in 2015) and were conducted in six countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Malaysia, Malawi, and the United States of America (USA) [7–21]. Fourteen evaluated LTBI: 11 reported LTBI prevalence [8–13, 15, 16, 19–21] and eight [8, 11, 12, 14–18] reported LTBI incidence. All were included in the meta-analyses. All but one used TST to diagnose LTBI [10]. Details regarding TST technique and cut-off points are displayed in Table 1. Four studies also evaluated the incidence of active TB [7, 12, 14, 18]. Diagnostic criteria for active TB included sputum smear microscopy [7, 14], culture [12, 14], and chest X-ray [14]. Only one study did not report diagnostic criteria [18]. Mean age of prison workers ranged from 18 to 64 years. The study subjects were predominantly male among the eight studies that reported sex [9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21]. Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination was reported in five studies (Table 1) [9, 10, 16, 19, 20].

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Characteristics of studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207400.t001

Study findings

Prevalence of LTBI

Overall, 110,192 CFW were evaluated for LTBI in five countries between 1986 and 2015 (Table 2). Pooled LTBI prevalence was 26% (95% CI = 12–42%, S2 Fig). Heterogeneity was high (I2 = 99.0%): prevalence of LTBI ranged from 6% in Australia [19] to 81% in Malaysia (S3 Fig) [20]. Exclusion of studies with less than 100 participants did not change the results significantly: pooled LTBI prevalence was 29% (95% CI = 14–47%), and the heterogeneity remained high (I2 = 99.0%). Pooled prevalence was 16% (95% CI = 10–22%, I2 = 93.3%) in countries with low TB burden, compared with 44% (95% CI = 12–79%, I2 = 99.0%) in countries with high TB burden (S4 Fig).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. The prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection and incidence of active tuberculosis, and the latent tuberculosis infection.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207400.t002

Incidence of LTBI

LTBI incidence was reported only in studies (n = 8) conducted in low-burden countries [8, 11, 12, 14–18]. Pooled LTBI incidence in 108,512 CFW was 2% (95% CI = 1–3%, S5 Fig), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 98.6%). Similar to the prevalence findings, removal of studies with less than 100 participants and of one study [14, 15] that tested conversion 4 years after the first TST [15] did not change the results: pooled incidence remained 2% (95% CI = 1–3%, I2 = 98.9%).

Active TB

Overall, 82,668 CFW were evaluated for active TB in three countries [7, 12, 14, 18] between 1999 and 2016. Incidence of active TB ranged from 0.61 to 450/10,000 CFW/year. We did not perform meta-analyses, since the time of follow up was 1, 3, and 10 years.

Risk factors

We heterogeneously analyzed risk factors for prevalence and incidence of LTBI in seven studies that controlled for confounding by using multivariate regression models (Table 3). Older age, BCG vaccination after infancy, history of contact with prisoners, work in correctional facilities for more than one year, permanence in endemic countries for more than three months, place of birth, and current smoking status were found to be associated with LTBI. Risk factors for active TB were not reported in any of the four studies.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Significant risk/associated factors for positive tuberculin skin test results after multivariate analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207400.t003

Quality of studies: Risk of bias

Nine studies were considered to be of good quality [7, 9, 11–13, 15, 16, 19, 20], and six were considered to be of fair quality S2 Table [8, 10, 14, 17, 18, 21]. Limitations of studies included lack of justification of sample selection [7–11, 13–19, 21], poor reliability of the measure of exposure (self-reporting), and >20% of the initial population being lost to follow up [21], The main limitation, however, was the absence of adjustment of risk factors for confounding variables [7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18].

Publication bias

The funnel plot for the included studies was not symmetrical (S6 Fig). Most studies are outside the 99.8% limit. Six studies [8, 10, 14, 17, 18, 21] contribute to the asymmetry, with smaller standard error and greater effect size, suggesting a risk of publication bias.

Discussion

TB transmission among inmates in correctional facilities is well reported, and represents a challenge for TB control [37]. Prisons and jails are frequently overcrowded, and the environmental conditions facilitate transmission [38]. The current study shows that the high risk of TB transmission is not restricted to inmates. The occurrence of LTBI is frequent among CFW, regardless of whether they worked in administrative, security, or healthcare services. Prevalence and incidence of LTBI are especially high in countries with high TB burden, despite the high heterogeneity among studies. Heterogeneity may be partially explained by the settings (TB burden, BCG vaccination policies), but methodological differences in sample selection and outcome definition (different cut-off values for TST) may also have played an important role.

Previous evidence suggests that TB should be considered an occupational disease in CFW [4, 5, 20]. Our study supports this point of view, although it is difficult to prove that transmission occurred within the correctional facilities. There are more studies on LTBI than on active TB and, unlike active TB, epidemiologic molecular evidence cannot be obtained to establish the source of LTBI transmission. However, indirect evidence suggests occupational transmission. Firstly, the magnitude of LTBI is similar to that reported in healthcare workers, a population known to have high work-related exposure [39]. Moreover, many of the reported LTBI risk factors for CFW are the same as those for healthcare workers [40, 41]. In addition, molecular studies have shown that inmates are a source of TB transmission in both the correctional facilities and the community [6]. Finally, in our review, the duration of work in correctional facilities was strongly and significantly associated with higher risk for LTBI in low-burden countries [9, 11, 20], whereas duration of contact with inmates was the main factor associated with LTBI in high-burden countries. These findings corroborate the plausibility of the occupational nature of the transmission. Nevertheless, a significant correlation was also found between TB risk and non-occupational variables, such as older age, place of birth, trips longer than three months and BCG after infancy in low-burden countries, and smoking [9, 11, 16, 19, 20] and region of the country in high-burden countries [21], suggesting that community exposure–as well as the BCG effect on TST results–has an effect in this setting.

The included studies had some limitations, although the methodological quality was considered good in nine studies. Most studies were cross-sectional, and therefore, evaluated the prevalence of LTBI; however, data on the incidence of LTBI would provide better evidence for occupational exposure, or at least, for recent infection. TST (and interferon-γ release assays) cannot distinguish between recent and remote infection [42]; thus, it is not possible to infer that infection occurred in the correctional facilities. Data stratified by occupation and exposure were not provided, precluding meta-regression and stratified analyses by level of exposure. Finally, most studies were conducted more than 17 years ago, and may not reflect the current situation.

Our review also presents limitations. The funnel plot suggests that we might have overestimated the prevalence of LTBI, since a larger effect size is suggested. However, the study has many strengths. We searched nine comprehensive databases and the gray literature, with no language restriction, and we had access to most of the literature.

In summary, employees of correctional facilities are at risk for TB. These findings emphasize the need for infection control measures in such high-risk settings. Close surveillance and timely treatment when necessary are recommended. More studies are required to elucidate the risk factors for TB in this setting.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. This is checklist PRISMA.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207400.s001

(DOC)

S1 Table. This is the S1 Table search strategy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207400.s002

(DOCX)

S2 Table. This is the S2 Table study quality assessment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207400.s003

(DOCX)

S1 Fig. This is the S1 Fig flowchart of study selection.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207400.s004

(DOC)

S2 Fig. This is the S2 Fig forest plot showing study-specific and pooled estimates of the prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207400.s005

(DOCX)

S3 Fig. This is S3 Fig forest plot showing country-specific pooled estimates of the prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207400.s006

(DOCX)

S4 Fig. This is S4 Fig forest plot showing pooled estimates of the prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection according to low and high burden countries.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207400.s007

(DOCX)

S5 Fig. This is S5 Fig forest plot showing study-specific and pooled estimates of the incidence of latent tuberculosis infection.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207400.s008

(DOCX)

S6 Fig. This is S6 Fig funnel plot showing pooled estimates of the prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207400.s009

(DOCX)

References

  1. 1. World Health Organization. Global tuberculosis report 2017. 2017. http://www.who.int/tb/publications/global_report/en/ (accessed 20 Dec 2017).
    • 2. Melchers NVSV, van Elsland SL, Lange JMA, Borgdorff MW, van den Hombergh J. State of affairs of tuberculosis in prison facilities: A systematic review of screening practices and recommendations for best TB control. PLoS One 2013;8:e53644. pmid:23372662
    • 3. Carbone A da SS, Paião DSG, Sgarbi RVE, Lemos EF, Cazanti RF, Ota MM, et al. Active and latent tuberculosis in Brazilian correctional facilities: a cross-sectional study. BMC Infect Dis 2015;15:24. pmid:25608746
    • 4. Jones TF, Woodley CL, Fountain FF, Schaffner W. Increased incidence of the outbreak strain of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in the surrounding community after an outbreak in a jail. South Med J 2003;96:155–7. pmid:12630640
    • 5. Chaves F, Dronda F, Cave MD, Alonso-Sanz M, Gonzalez-Lopez A, Eisenach KD, et al. A longitudinal study of transmission of tuberculosis in a large prison population. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997;155:719–25. pmid:9032218
    • 6. Sacchi FPC, Praça RM, Tatara MB, Simonsen V, Ferrazoli L, Croda MG, et al. Prisons as reservoir for community transmission of tuberculosis, Brazil. Emerg Infect Dis 2015;21:452–5. pmid:25642998
    • 7. Kachisi GS, Harries AD, Kemp JR, Salaniponi FM. High incidence of tuberculosis in prison officers in Zomba, Malawi. Malawi Med J J Med Assoc Malawi 2002;14:17–8.
    • 8. Spencer SS, Morton AR. Tuberculosis surveillance in a state prison system. Am J Public Health 1989;79:507–9. pmid:2929816
    • 9. Jochem K, Tannenbaum TN, Menzies D. Prevalence of tuberculin skin test reactions among prison workers. Can J Public Health 1997;88:202–6. pmid:9260362
    • 10. Oliveira SMDVL, Maciel ELN, et al. Infecção latente por tuberculose em trabalhadores do sistema prisional. 2017. 1:72934 ISSN: 2594-4738. https://proceedings.galoa.com.br/medtrop/autores/sandra-maria-do-valle-leone-de-oliveira (accessed 27 February 2018).
      • 11. Cooper-Arnold K, Morse T, Hodgson M, Pettigrew C, Wallace R, Clive J, et al. Occupational tuberculosis among deputy sheriffs in Connecticut: a risk model of transmission. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 1999;14:768–76. pmid:10590550
      • 12. Jones TF, Craig AS, Valway SE, Woodley CL, Schaffner W. Transmission of tuberculosis in a jail. Ann Intern Med 1999;131:557–63. pmid:10523215
      • 13. Nogueira PA, Abrahão RMC de M, Galesi VMN. Infecção tuberculosa latente em profissionais contatos e não contatos de detentos de duas penitenciárias do estado de São Paulo, Brasil, 2008. Rev Bras Epidemiol 2011;14:486–94. pmid:22069016
      • 14. Youakim S. The occupational risk of tuberculosis in a low-prevalence population. Occup Med Oxf Engl 2016;66:466–70.
      • 15. Centers For Disease Control and Prevention. Probable Transmission of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in a correctional facility—California. 1993. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00019065.htm (accessed 10 Jul 2017).
        • 16. Mitchell CS, Gershon RRM, Lears MK, Vlahov D, Felknor S, Lubelczyk RA, et al. Risk of tuberculosis in correctional healthcare workers. J Occup Environ Med 2005;47:580–6. pmid:15951718
        • 17. Steenland K, Levine AJ, Sieber K, Schulte P, Aziz D. Incidence of tuberculosis infection among New York State prison employees. Am J Public Health 1997;87:2012–4. pmid:9431293
        • 18. Binswanger IA, O’Brien K, Benton K, Gardner EM, Hirsh JM, Felton S, et al. Tuberculosis testing in correctional officers: a national random survey of jails in the United States. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2010;14:464–70. pmid:20202305
        • 19. MacIntyre CR, Carnie J, Randall M. Risk of transmission of tuberculosis among inmates of an Australian prison. Epidemiol Infect 1999;123:445–50. pmid:10694155
        • 20. Al-Darraji HAA, Tan C, Kamarulzaman A, Altice FL. Prevalence and correlates of latent tuberculosis infection among employees of a high security prison in Malaysia. Occup Environ Med 2015;72:442–7. pmid:25794506
        • 21. Busatto C, Nunes L de S, Valim AR de M, Valença MS, Krug SF, Becker D, et al. Tuberculosis among prison staff in Rio Grande do Sul. Rev Bras Enferm 2017;70:370–5. pmid:28403282
        • 22. World Health Organization. WHO End TB Strategy. http://www.who.int/tb/post2015_strategy/en/ (accessed 28 Aug 2017)
          • 23. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. pmid:19621072
          • 24. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539–58. pmid:12111919
          • 25. Quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies—NHLBI, NIH [Internet]. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/in-develop/cardiovascular-risk-reduction/tools/cohort (accessed 28 Aug 2017)
            • 26. Sánchez Moreno A, Villena Martínez L, Castro Recio JM, Aguayo Canela M, Pujol de la Llave E. [Study of tuberculosis in Huelva prison]. An Med Interna 1997;14:607–10. [Article in Spanish] pmid:9518028
            • 27. Russkikh OE, Mikhaĭlov MV. [Incidence of tuberculosis in officials from penitentiaries of the Republic of Udmurtia]. Probl Tuberk Bolezn Legk 2008;(3):18–9. [Article in Russian] pmid:18450074
            • 28. Russkikh OE, Dediukhin AA, Mikhailov MV. [Incidence of tuberculosis among workers engaged in the penitentiary system in the Republic of Udmurtia]. Probl Tuberk Bolezn Legk 2003;(9):5–6. [Article in Russian] pmid:14598515
            • 29. Diuana V, Lhuilier D, Sánchez AR, Amado G, Araújo L, Duarte AM, et al. Health in the prison system: representations and practices by prison guards in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Cad Saúde Pública 2008;24(8):1887–96. pmid:18709229
            • 30. Gershon R, Greenmckenzie J, Swetz A. Infectious disease risk in correctional facility-based healthcare workers. Clin Occup Environ Med 2002;2:519–36.
            • 31. Ikeda RM, Birkhead GS, DiFerdinando GT, Bornstein DL, Dooley SW, Kubica GP, et al. Nosocomial tuberculosis: an outbreak of a strain resistant to seven drugs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16:152–9. pmid:7608502
            • 32. Lambert LA, Armstrong LR, Lobato MN, Ho C, France AM, Haddad MB. Tuberculosis in jails and prisons: United States, 2002−2013. Am J Public Health 2016;106:2231–7. pmid:27631758
            • 33. Sosa LE, Lobato MN, Condren T, Williams MN, Hadler JL. Outbreak of tuberculosis in a correctional facility: consequences of missed opportunities. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2008;12:689–91. pmid:18492339
            • 34. Mor Z, Adler A, Leventhal A, Volovic I, Rosenfeld E, Lobato MN, et al. Tuberculosis behind bars in Israel: policy making within a dynamic situation. Isr Med Assoc J 2008;10:202–6. pmid:18494233
            • 35. Arroyave L, López L, Marin D. Prevalence and risk factors associated with latent tuberculosis infection in security guards from a Colombian prison. In: The Union. 2016. http://www.theunion.org/what-we-do/journals/ijtld/conference-abstract-books (accessed 24 Dec 2017).
              • 36. Ashipala L, Auala T, Kueyo T. Results of the first mass screening campaign for tuberculosis in the Namibian Correctional Service. In: The Union. 2016. http://www.theunion.org/what-we-do/journals/ijtld/conference-abstract-books (accessed 26 Dec 2017).
                • 37. Kawatsu L, Uchimura K, Izumi K, Ohkado A. [A systematic review on the prevalence and incidence of latent tuberculosis infection among prison population]. Kekkaku 2016;91:457–64. [Article in Japanese] pmid:27530018
                • 38. Dara M, Acosta CD, Melchers NVSV, Al-Darraji HA, Chorgoliani D, Reyes H, et al. Tuberculosis control in prisons: current situation and research gaps. Int J Infect Dis 2015;32:111–7. pmid:25809766
                • 39. Nasreen S, Shokoohi M, Malvankar-Mehta MS. Prevalence of latent tuberculosis among health care workers in high burden countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2016;11:e0164034. pmid:27711155
                • 40. Hefzy EM, Wegdan AA, Elhefny RA. Predictors of low prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection among Egyptian health care workers at intensive care and bronchoscopy units. GMS Hyg Infect Control 2016. http://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/portal/resource/pt/mdl-27777875 (accessed 19 Oct 2017).
                • 41. Grobler L, Mehtar S, Dheda K, Adams S, Babatunde S, van der Walt M, et al. The epidemiology of tuberculosis in health care workers in South Africa: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2016;16:416. pmid:27544429
                • 42. Pai M, Denkinger CM, Kik SV, Rangaka MX, Zwerling A, Oxlade O, et al. Gamma interferon release assays for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. Clin Microbiol Rev 2014;27:3–20. pmid:24396134