Comparison 4. LHW interventions to improve TB treatment outcomes compared with other forms of adherence support.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Cure for smear positive TB patients (new and retreatment) ‐ adjusted for clustering	2		Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	1.16 [0.93, 1.46]
2 Cure for smear positive TB patients (new and retreatment)	4	1203	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.18 [1.09, 1.28]
3 Cure for smear positive TB patients (new and retreatment) ‐ adjusted for clustering	4		Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	1.22 [1.13, 1.31]
4 New smear positives cured ‐ adjusted for clustering	2		Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
5 Combined cure and treatment completion for all pulmonary TB patients	3	756	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.20 [1.12, 1.29]
6 Combined cure and treatment completion for all pulmonary TB patients ‐ adjusted for clustering	3		Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
7 TB Preventive therapy with Isoniazid ‐ completed therapy	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
7.1 LHW (peer) supported self‐supervision or DOT compared with self supervision	2	595	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.00 [0.92, 1.09]