Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Oct 8;16(10):e0258295. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258295

Drug resistance and its risk factors among extrapulmonary tuberculosis in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Getu Diriba 1,*, Habteyes Hailu Tola 1, Ayinalem Alemu 1, Bazezew Yenew 1, Dinka Fikadu Gamtesa 1, Abebaw Kebede 1,2
Editor: Mohammad Mehdi Feizabadi3
PMCID: PMC8500428  PMID: 34624050

Abstract

Background

Drug-resistant tuberculosis and extrapulmonary tuberculosis are the world major public health issues. Although some primary studies have been reported on the burden of drug-resistant tuberculosis in extrapulmonary tuberculosis patients in Ethiopia, there is no systematic review and meta-analysis that attempt to summarize the available literature. Thus, we aimed to estimates the prevalence of drug-resistance in extrapulmonary tuberculosis patients and summarize the risk factors associated with the occurrence of extrapulmonary tuberculosis in Ethiopia.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of the published primary studies on extrapulmonary drug-resistant tuberculosis in Ethiopia.

Results

Eight observational studies were included in this review from different regions of Ethiopia. The overall pooled prevalence of rifampicin resistance was 6% (95% CI 0.03–0.10), while isoniazid resistance was 7% (95% CI 0.03–0.12). The pooled prevalence of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis was 4% (95% CI 0.01–0.07). Previous tuberculosis treatment history and male gender are frequently reported risk factors for developing drug-resistant tuberculosis in extrapulmonary tuberculosis patients.

Conclusion

The current review has identified a high proportion of resistance to rifampicin, isoniazid, and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in patients with extrapulmonary tuberculosis in Ethiopia. Clinicians should request drug susceptibility testing for all patients with presumptive extrapulmonary tuberculosis to detect drug-resistance.

Introduction

Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the leading causes of death from a single infectious agent [1]. TB mainly affects the lungs (pulmonary TB), but it can also affect other body sites, which refer, to extrapulmonary TB (EPTB) [1, 2]. EPTB is defined as any bacteriologically confirmed or clinically diagnosed case of TB involving organs other than the lungs. The body organs other than the lungs that are mainly affected by TB include the pleura, lymph nodes, abdomen, genitourinary tract, skin, joints, bones, and meninges [35]. The incidence of EPTB involvement of TB occurs in approximately 10 million new TB cases that were reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2018, 16% were EPTB cases; incidence rates ranged from 8% in the Western Pacific Region to 24% in the Eastern Mediterranean Region [6].

Drug-resistant (DR) TB is the main challenge of the global TB control program due to its high risk of relapse, treatment failure, prolonged transmission of the bacilli, and death [7]. A recent global estimate indicates about half a million rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (RR-TB) cases well be developed across the world in 2019 [8]. Of the total RR-TB cases developed in 2019 across the world, 82% had multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) [2]. MDR-TB is defined as Mycobacterium tuberculosis that is resistant to at least isoniazid and rifampicin [9, 10]. Extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB) is also the current challenge that faces the global TB control program. XDR-TB is referred to as Mycobacterium tuberculosis. It is resistant to at least isoniazid (INH) and rifampicin (RIF), but also resistant to any of the fluoroquinolones and at least one of the injectable second-line drugs (amikacin, capreomycin, or kanamycin) [1113]. A total of 8,014 XDR-TB cases were reported from 72 countries in 2017. Combining their data, the average proportion of MDR-TB cases with XDR-TB was 6.2% in 2017 [14].

The treatment of DR-TB is more difficult than the treatment of drug-susceptible TB because it requires the use of second-line drugs that are of a longer duration, more costly, more toxic, and less effective. Patients who are infected with strains resistant to isoniazid and rifampicin are practically incurable by standard first-line TB drugs [13, 15].

Currently, Ethiopia is ranked third in Africa in TB incidence and among the 30 high TB, TB/HIV, and MDR-TB burden countries [10]. The estimated prevalence rate of MDR-TB in Ethiopia is 0.7% among new cases and 16% among previously treated patients in 2019 [1, 10, 16]. Although the burden of MDR-TB is decreasing in the country over time in new cases, it is still high among previously treated cases [1, 2]. For example, the estimated prevalence of MDR-TB in previously treated cases was 17.8% in 2017, while in 2018 it was 14% [2, 17]. Moreover, although several review studies tried to pool the prevalence of DR-TB in pulmonary TB cases, no review study tried to pool the burden of DR-TB in EPTB patients in Ethiopia. Besides, there is no nationwide drug resistance surveillance like pulmonary TB in Ethiopia and the challenges the country is planning to face are not as simple as conducting TB DRS. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of DR-TB in patients with EPTB, and summarize the risk factors associated with the occurrence of EPTB in Ethiopia.

Methods

Protocol and registration

The protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews), University of York. It was assigned a registration number (CRD42020139028) and can be accessed from the link https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#record. However, ethical clearance was not sought, because this study was based on already published primary studies.

Search strategy

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the pooled prevalence of DR-TB in patients with EPTB in Ethiopia, and to summarize risk factors associated with DR-TB occurrence following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement guideline for reporting of systematic review and meta-analysis [18, 19]. We systematically searched electronic databases such as MEDLINE (PubMed), ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar from January 15 to 21 February 2021 to retrieve articles published in English without limiting the publication year. We used the keywords: “prevalence”; “burden”; “anti-TB drug susceptibility”; “anti-TB drug resistance”; “Resistant TB”; “Multidrug resistance TB”; “MDR-TB”; “extensively drug resistance” “XDR-TB” and “extrapulmonary tuberculosis” with free text and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) to retrieve the potential primary studies. We also searched for bibliographies of other reviews and citations of the original articles included in this review.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

In the study, cross-sectional and retrospective observational studies were included. The study included studies that mentioned DR-TB prevalence in new and/or previously treated patients with extrapulmonary tuberculosis who were diagnosed using the conventional method of drug sensitivity testing. Studies with inaccurate data, studies not disclosing the DST method, and review articles, meta-analyses, duplicates, and pulmonary TB were all excluded from the study.

Study selection

Two authors (GD and AA) were searched the electronic databases separately to retrieve the potential studies. All retrieved records from the systematic search were screened using titles and abstracts. Irrelevant records were excluded by the study population and outcome difference. In the next step, full-text articles were screened by two reviewers (GD and DF) independently to select relevant articles based on inclusion criteria. Discrepancies between two reviewers (GD and DF) were addressed by a discussion between the two authors.

Data extraction

We extracted the required data from each included study using a format prepared for a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. For each selected study, first author, publication year, sample size, study design, study area, drug susceptibility test (DST) method, number of patients with DST results, INH susceptibility status, RIF susceptibility status, MDR-TB, and risk factors that are associated with drug-resistant TB were extracted. Two authors (AA and DF) extracted the data independently. Discrepancies in the data extraction between the two authors were resolved through discussions.

Study quality and risk of bias assessment

The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was employed to assess the quality of the included studies by two authors (GD and DF) independently. The disagreement between the two authors was resolved by consensus. In the case of a persistent disagreement, a third author was consulted.

Statistical analysis and data synthesis

We estimated the pooled prevalence of DR-TB in EPTB patients with its 95% confidence interval by a random-effects meta-analysis model, assuming the true effect size varies between the included studies. The ‘metaprop’ command on STATA 14 (STATA Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) was used to estimate the pooled prevalence of DR-TB in patients with EPTB. A forest plot was used to display pooled DR-TB prevalence. We assessed heterogeneity in the reported prevalence by chi-square (Q), p-values, and I2 [20]. I2 ≥ 50% was considered to be the presence of heterogeneity [21]. We also assessed the presence of publication bias with a funnel plot and Egger’s test (p-value < 0.1 as significant level).

Results

Study selection

The three electronic databases yielded a total of 477 articles, which were then imported into an Endnote library. Fig 1 depicts the article search and inclusion process. We retrieved a total of 477 study records during the search process. A total of 195 studies remained after 280 records were removed due to duplication, population, and outcome differences. In the next step, 136 studies were excluded due to the absence of data on the outcome variable, and 59 studies have remained. Finally, a total of 8 articles met the inclusion criteria after 51 studies were excluded because they were conducted on foreigners and for pulmonary tuberculosis only. Over all, full screening was done based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews.

Fig 1. Flow diagram of the study search, selection and screening literature for the review.

Fig 1

Characteristics of included studies

On a total of 776 confirmed EPTB patients, eight included studies reported DR (including RIF resistance, INH resistance, and MDR-TB). Of the eight studies, two were reported on RIF resistance only [22, 23], three on RIF and INH resistance [2426], and another three on all first-line anti-TB drugs [2729]. Regarding DST methods, three studies used phenotypic methods (proportion, absolute concentration, and the BACTEC system) [2729], two used the genotypic Xpert MTB/RIF assay [22, 23], and three used the genotypic MTBDRplus assay [2426]. The publication years of the included studies ranged from 2014 to 2020 and all studies employed a cross-sectional study design (Table 1).

Table 1. General characteristics of studies included in the review.

First Author, Year [ref.] Study Design Study area Study Setting Sample size RIF Resistant INH Resistant MDR-TB DST method
Biadglegne et al, 2014 [27] Cross sectional Bahirdar, Gondar & Dessie Facility based 225 4 8 3 Phenotypic/ MGIT 960 system
Mulu et al, 2017 [22] Cross sectional Debre Markos Facility based 53 6 0 0 Genotypic (Xpert MTB/RIF)
Bekele et al, 2018 [24] Cross sectional North Ethiopia Facility based 54 3 0 2 Genotypic/ MTBDRplus
Tadesse et al, 2015 [23] Cross sectional Jimma Facility based 92 4 0 0 Genotypic Xpert MTB/RIF
Korma et al, 2015 [28] Cross sectional Addis Ababa Facility based 59 13 5 0 Phenotypic/ MGIT 960 system
Zewdie et al, 2018 [25] Cross sectional Addis Ababa Facility based 60 5 6 5 Genotypic/ MTBDRplus
Sitotaw et al, 2017 [26] Cross sectional Bahirdar Facility based 82 2 3 1 Genotypic/ MTBDRplus
Diriba et al, 2020 [29] Cross sectional Addis Ababa Facility based 151 14 22 14 Phenotypic/ MGIT 960 system

DST-drug susceptibility test, RIF-rifampicin, INH-Isoniazid, MDR-TB-multidrug resistance tuberculosis.

Data on a total of 776 patients with EPTB was pooled from eight studies that were included in this review. Of the total of 776 patients, 51 had RIF resistance to bacilli. The overall pooled prevalence of RIF resistance was 6% (95% CI 0.03–0.10, I2 = 74.66%). The highest RIF resistance proportion was reported from Addis Ababa (22%) [28] and the minimum from north Ethiopia (2%) [26, 27]. There was significant heterogeneity in the reported prevalence rate of RIF resistance (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Forest plot showing the prevalence of RIF among the total sample.

Fig 2

Of the eight studies included in this review, five reported INH resistance proportion. The crude prevalence of INH resistance has varied across the studies reported from different geographical locations of Ethiopia. Of the included studies, three studies [25, 28, 29] reported a higher prevalence of INH resistance, which ranged from 8% to 15%. The overall pooled prevalence of INH resistance was 7% (95% CI 0.03–0.12, I2 = 73.80%, p-value test for heterogeneity < 0.01) (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Forest plot showing the prevalence of INH among the total sample.

Fig 3

Of the eight studies included in this review, five studies have reported the prevalence of MDR-TB (Table 1). Two studies [25, 29] reported from Addis Ababa and show the highest (8% and 9%) prevalence of MDR-TB. Moreover, two studies [26, 27] reported from northern Ethiopia have shown a low (1%) prevalence of MDR-TB. The overall pooled prevalence of MDR-TB was 4% (95% CI 0.01–0.07, I2 = 71.84%, p-value < 0.01) (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Forest plot showing the prevalence of MDR-TB among the total sample (EPTB) case (the pooled estimate from the random-effects model).

Fig 4

The presence of publication bias was assessed using funnel plot and Egger statistical tests at a 5% level of significance. The publication bias based on the funnel plot and Egger test results (p = 0.01) also confirmed the presence of publication bias in the included studies in the estimated prevalence of drug resistance.

The most commonly reported risk factor of MDR-TB occurrence was having previous exposure to anti-TB treatment [22]. In contrast, two studies [25, 27] have demonstrated the preventive effect of previous anti-TB exposure. Male sex was also reported as the risk factor of MDR-TB occurrence [22].

Discussion

In this review, eight cross-sectional studies published between 2014 and 2020 were included. This review estimated the pooled prevalence of first-line anti-tubercular drug resistance and the risk factors of DR-TB occurrence in patients with EPTB in Ethiopia. The pooled prevalence of INH resistance was 7.0%, while RIF resistance was 6% and MDR-TB was 4%. The two risk factors of DR-TB occurrence were previous TB treatment history and being male sex.

In this review, the pooled prevalence of RIF resistance was 6%. The pooled prevalence of the present review was relatively higher than in the previous primary study reported from Iran, in which the prevalence of RIF resistance TB was 3.1% [30]. Moreover, the results of the current review findings are relatively similar to a review study reported from Saudi Arabia in which the pooled prevalence of RIF-resistant TB is 5.4% [31]. In contrast, the previous studies reported from different countries indicated a higher prevalence of RIF resistance; 21% [32] and 8,6% [33], than in our finding. This substantial difference could be due to drug-resistance detection methods and the variability in the burden of drug resistance across study sites within the country and/or by country. The studies included in the current review employed different susceptibility testing methods, such as the Xpert MTB/RIF assay, the Genotype MTBDRplus assay, and phenotypic methods like the BACTEC system. The previous studies might be used only genotypic or phenotypic methods.

In the present review, the pooled prevalence of INH resistance was 7% in patient with EPTB. Our finding is in agreement with the previous review studies in which the pooled prevalence of INH resistance was 8% [15, 34]. However, the prevalence of INH resistance in the current review was lower than the results of a previous review study reported from Iran in which the prevalence of INH resistance was 12.8% in new TB cases and 40.1% in previously treated cases [35]. The reason is that the DR TB burden in Iran is likely to be higher in Ethiopia, and also in terms of HIV prevalence, as in the current review, the pooled prevalence of MDR-TB was 4% among confirmed EPTB cases, which is consistent with previous studies [2229]. However, the results of our review indicated a lower prevalence of MDR-TB than reports from previous studies in which the prevalence of those previously treated was 18% and slightly higher than the rate among those newly diagnosed of 3.3% [36]. This might be due to study design differences, where the 2020 MDR-TB WHO report’s estimated prevalence was for either RIF resistance or both RIF and INH resistance. Moreover, the WHO surveillance report estimated the prevalence of MDR-TB in new TB cases and previously treated cases separately. In our study, we could not estimate the prevalence of any DR-TB and MDR-TB in new TB cases and retreated TB cases separately due to reported variation in the published papers. Furthermore, these data reported low prevalence rates of MDR-TB, with two studies in India and one study in China finding that the prevalence of MDR-TB among the total cases was respectively 19%, 11.6%, 17.2% [6, 37, 38]. This is quite higher when compared to our study. This might be due to variations in the patient group studied. Most MDR-TB cases are due to poor adherence to TB medications, irregular use of drugs, interrupted drug supplies, physician error, and accessibility of drugs without a prescription [39]. In Ethiopia, the low socioeconomic status of the population, high prevalence of infectious diseases, unfavorable treatment outcomes, longer treatment period, and many more complications make MDR-TB a more complex disease than TB [16].

In our study, we reviewed the risk factors of DR-TB in Ethiopia. This finding occurs at a time when there is more information on rates and factors associated with DR-TB, although data on DR-TB is still limited to the EPTB in Ethiopia. A finding that highlights the association of the previous history of anti-TB with MDR-treatment TB infection was high [9, 27]. As indicated in the study, the observed prevalence of MDR-TB was significantly higher than that of newly diagnosed TB cases. Our results confirm prior reviews that having previous treatment is the most influential risk factor for developing DR-TB and MDR-TB. Similarly, a meta-analysis identified a higher number of patients with a previous history of anti-TB treatment than that of newly diagnosed TB cases [9]. Another systematic review analyzed the risk of MDR-TB was 10.23 times higher in previously treated than in never treated cases [40]. This case occurred due to delayed diagnosis, delayed recognition of drug resistance, inappropriate chemotherapy regimens, inadequate or irregular drug supply, and poor agreement by both patients and clinicians have each been reported as a reason for inadequate treatment.

Our study verified the results of prior meta-analyses showing that the male gender was an essential risk factor for DR-TB and MDR-TB [22]. Similarly, a meta-analysis identified the male gender as being associated with acquired drug resistance [40]. Moreover, a systematic review that investigated the risk factors of DR-TB in different countries using primary studies reported a higher risk of drug resistance among men [41, 42]. It was thought that the possible reason behind men having a higher rate of MDR-TB than women might be due to social and health-seeking behavior differences and higher exposure of males to the outer environment, smoking, alcohol abuse, intravenous drug abuse dependency, and imprisonment status, in which more men than women are involved.

There are limitations to our study. First, due to the limited number of published articles in the country in the specified EPTB data sources, the number of articles reviewed was small. Second, we were not able to determine the resistance rates based on categorizing cases of new and retreated EPTB patients. Third, our analysis may not fully represent the frequency of extrapulmonary DR-TB as the extent of drug resistance has not yet been fully investigated in Ethiopia. However, the results remain important as the increasing level of drug resistance among EPTB patients of the population is alarming.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our systematic review showed a high proportion of RIF, INH, and MDR-TB among EPTB patients in Ethiopia. The review showed that the prevalence of extrapulmonary DR-TB has continued to become a serious public health problem in Ethiopia. To our knowledge, this finding could help the programmatic management of the disease within the context of the National TB Control program. Clinicians should request drug susceptibility testing for all patients with presumptive EPTB to detect drug resistance. Our findings highlight the need for more studies evaluating drug resistance in EPTB patients.

Supporting information

S1 File. Literature search strategy from searched databases.

(DOCX)

S2 File. Detailed data of the included studies.

(XLSX)

S3 File. PRISMA checklist.

(DOC)

S4 File. Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale for cross sectional studies.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge all the authors of the original studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abbreviations

AFB

Acid-fast bacilli

CI

Confidence interval

DR-TB

Drug-resistant tuberculosis

DST

Drug susceptibility test

EPTB

Extra pulmonary tuberculosis

FNAC

Fine needle aspiration

INH

Isoniazid

MDRTB

Multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis

MGIT

Mycobacterium Growth Indicator Tube

PRISMA

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PTB

pulmonary TB

RIF

Rifampicin

RR-TB

Rifampicin resistance Tuberculosis

TB

Tuberculosis

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization, Global Tuberculosis Report 2019.
  • 2.World Health Organization, Global Tuberculosis Report 2018.
  • 3.Mbuh TP, Ane-Anyangwe I, Adeline W, Thumamo Pokam BD, Meriki HD, Mbacham WF et al. Bacteriologically confirmed extrapulmonary tuberculosis and treatment outcome of patients consulted and treated under program conditions in the littoral region of Cameroon. BMC Pulm Med. 2019;19(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s12890-018-0770-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lee JY. Diagnosis and treatment of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Tuberc Respir Dis (Seoul). 2015;78(2):47–55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Metaferia Y, Seid A, Fenta GM, Gebretsadik D. Assessment of Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis Using Gene Xpert MTB/RIF Assay and Fluorescent Microscopy and Its Risk Factors at Dessie Referral Hospital, Northeast Ethiopia. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:8207098. doi: 10.1155/2018/8207098 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Pang Y, An J, Shu W, Huo F, Chu N, Gao M, et al. Epidemiology of Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis among Inpatients, China, 2008–2017. Emerg Infect Dis. 2019;25(3):457–64. doi: 10.3201/eid2503.180572 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Boonsarngsuk V, Mangkang K, Santanirand P. Prevalence and risk factors of drug-resistant extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Clin Respir J. 2018;12(6):2101–9. doi: 10.1111/crj.12779 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.World Health Organization Global Tuberculosis Report, 2020.
  • 9.Eshetie S, Gizachew M, Dagnew M, Kumera G, Woldie H, Ambaw F, et al. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Ethiopian settings and its association with previous history of anti-tuberculosis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17(1):219. doi: 10.1186/s12879-017-2323-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Shibabaw A, Gelaw B, Gebreyes W, Robinson R, Wang SH, Tessema B et al. The burden of pre-extensively and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis among MDR-TB patients in the Amhara region, Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2020;15(2):e0229040. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Alene KA, Yi H, Viney K, McBryde ES, Yang K, Bai L, et al. Treatment outcomes of patients with multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis in Hunan Province, China. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17(1):573. doi: 10.1186/s12879-017-2662-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bastos ML, Hussain H, Weyer K, Garcia-Garcia L, Leimane V, Leung CC, et al. Treatment outcomes of patients with multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis according to drug susceptibility testing to first- and second-line drugs: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(10):1364–74. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu619 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Seung KJ, Keshavjee S, Rich ML. Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis and Extensively Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2015;5(9):a017863. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a017863 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tiberi S, Munoz-Torrico M, Duarte R, Dalcolmo M, D’Ambrosio L, Migliori GB et al. New drugs and perspectives for new anti-tuberculosis regimens. Pulmonology. 2018;24(2):86–98. doi: 10.1016/j.rppnen.2017.10.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Dean AS, Zignol M, Cabibbe AM, Falzon D, Glaziou P, Cirillo DM, et al. Prevalence and genetic profiles of isoniazid resistance in tuberculosis patients: A multicountry analysis of cross-sectional data. PLoS Med. 2020;17(1):e1003008. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Girum T, Muktar E, Lentiro K, Wondiye H, Shewangizaw M. Epidemiology of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence, determinants and treatment outcome. Trop Dis Travel Med Vaccines. 2018;4:5. doi: 10.1186/s40794-018-0065-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.World Health Organization Global tuberculosis report 2017.
  • 18.Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Bastian H, Chalmers I, et al. PRISMA for Abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med. 2013;10(4):e1001419. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Rucker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter JR, Schumacher M. Undue reliance on I(2) in assessing heterogeneity may mislead. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:79. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-79 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Huedo-Medina TB, Sanchez-Meca J, Marin-Martinez F, Botella J. Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychol Methods. 2006;11(2):193–206. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mulu W, Abera B, Yimer M, Hailu T, Ayele H, Abate D et al. Rifampicin-resistance pattern of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and associated factors among presumptive tuberculosis patients referred to Debre Markos Referral Hospital, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s13104-016-2328-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tadesse M, Abebe G, Abdissa K, Aragaw D, Abdella K, Bekele A, et al. GeneXpert MTB/RIF Assay for the Diagnosis of Tuberculous Lymphadenitis on Concentrated Fine Needle Aspirates in High Tuberculosis Burden Settings. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0137471. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137471 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bekele S, Derese Y, Hailu E, Mihret A, Dagne K, Yamuah L, et al. Line-probe assay and molecular typing reveal a potential drug-resistant clone of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Ethiopia. Trop Dis Travel Med Vaccines. 2018;4:15. doi: 10.1186/s40794-018-0075-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zewdie O, Mihret A, Abebe T, Kebede A, Desta K, Worku A, et al. Genotyping and molecular detection of multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis among tuberculosis lymphadenitis cases in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. New Microbes New Infect. 2018;21:36–41. doi: 10.1016/j.nmni.2017.10.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sitotaw Y. Drug sensitivity patterns of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex species isolated from tuberculosis lymphadenitis patients in north-western Ethiopia 2017.
  • 27.Biadglegne F, Tessema B, Sack U, Rodloff AC. Drug resistance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates from tuberculosis lymphadenitis patients in Ethiopia. Indian J Med Res 2014;140:116–22. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Korma W, Mihret A, Hussien J, Anthony R, Lakew M, Aseffa A et al. Clinical, molecular and drug sensitivity pattern of mycobacterial isolates from extra-pulmonary tuberculosis cases in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15:456. doi: 10.1186/s12879-015-1177-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Diriba G, Kebede A, Tola HH, Yenew B, Moga S, Addise D. et al. Molecular characterization and drug resistance patterns of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in extrapulmonary tuberculosis patients in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. PLoS ONE 2020;15(12):e0243493. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243493 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Baghbanbashi S, Mousavi SMJ, Dabiri H, Hakemi-Vala M, Goudarzi H, Hamzehloo G, et al. Rifampin resistance among individuals with extrapulmonary tuberculosis: 4 years of experience from a reference laboratory. New Microbes and New Infections. 2021;40:100841. doi: 10.1016/j.nmni.2021.100841 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Al-Tawfiq JA, Hinedi K, Memish ZA. Systematic review of the prevalence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis resistance in Saudi Arabia. J Chemother. 2015;27(6):378–82. doi: 10.1179/1973947815Y.0000000058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gautam PB, Mishra A, Kumar S. Prevalence of rifampicin-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis and associated factors among presumptive tuberculosis patients in eastern Uttar Pradesh: a cross-sectional study. International Journal Of Community Medicine And Public Health. 2018;5(6):2271. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Chakraborty S, Chakraborty A, Talukder T, Mukherjee M, Chatterjee T. Prevalence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Strains Isolated from Both Pulmonary and Extra Pulmonary Samples and Their Resistance to Rifampicin: A Study from Kolkata and Surrounding Suburbs. Journal of Tuberculosis Research. 2016;04(02):61–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Yuen CM, Tolman AW, Cohen T, Parr JB, Keshavjee S, Becerra MC et al. Isoniazid-resistant Tuberculosis in Children. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 2013;32(5):e217–e26. doi: 10.1097/INF.0b013e3182865409 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Javad Nasiri M, Chirani AS, Amin M, Halabian R, Imani Fooladi AA. Isoniazid-resistant tuberculosis in Iran: A systematic review. Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2016;98:104–9. doi: 10.1016/j.tube.2016.03.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.World Health Organization. Global Tuberculosis Report. Geneva: WHO press; 2020.
  • 37.Dusthackeer A, Sekar G, Chidambaram S, Kumar V, Mehta P, Swaminathan S et al. Drug resistance among extrapulmonary TB patients: Six years experience from a supranational reference laboratory. Indian J Med Res. 2015;142(5):568–74. doi: 10.4103/0971-5916.171284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Raveendran R, Oberoi JK, Wattal C. Multidrug-resistant pulmonary & extrapulmonary tuberculosis: A 13 years retrospective hospital-based analysis. Indian J Med Res. 2015;142(5):575–82. doi: 10.4103/0971-5916.171285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Seyoum B, Demissie M, Worku A, Bekele S, Aseffa A. Prevalence and Drug Resistance Patterns of Mycobacterium tuberculosis among New Smear Positive Pulmonary Tuberculosis Patients in Eastern Ethiopia. Tuberc Res Treat. 2014;2014:753492. doi: 10.1155/2014/753492 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Faustini A, Hall AJ, Perucci CA. Risk factors for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Europe: a systematic review. Thorax. 2006;61(2):158–63. doi: 10.1136/thx.2005.045963 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Jimma W, Ghazisaeedi M, Shahmoradi L, Abdurahman AA, Kalhori SRN, Nasehi M et al. Prevalence of and risk factors for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Iran and its neighboring countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2017;50(3):287–95. doi: 10.1590/0037-8682-0002-2017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Elmi OS, Hasan H, Abdullah S, Mat Jeab MZ, Bin Alwi Z, Naing NN et al. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis and risk factors associated with its development: a retrospective study. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2015;9(10):1076–85. doi: 10.3855/jidc.6162 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mohammad Mehdi Feizabadi

29 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-12541

Drug resistance and its risk factors among extrapulmonary tuberculosis in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Getu Diriba,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 13 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohammad Mehdi Feizabadi, phd

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods, please state the timeline of your literature search.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. The date of electronic database searching is not mentioned in method or else, maybe it need updating electronic database searching.

2. On fig 1, out of 195 studies 136 studies were excluded in which 59 were eligible for full text

evaluation, but the authors wrote 60.

3. Lack of consistency of using words through out of the manuscript for example in line 34, 37 ‘extrapulmonary but in line 54 extra-pulmonary

Further proofread and copyediting are required for this manuscript. The paper must be carefully checked by a native English speaker.

Reviewer #2: 1. Literature Searches and Search terms are incomplete. This is suboptimal for publication for systematic review. Please attach search terms that were used in each database as supplement for Data source and search strategies in the manuscript. Please provide details search terms in supplementary documents. Please attach syntax used in each database as supplementary. Authors should also search Embase in their study.

2. When Pubmed is used for the search, MESH terms are always recommended to be included.

3. Evaluation of gray literature is unclear.

4. Please report here the process of search and inclusion/exclusion of the study and the reasons of exclusion in detail. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be better detailed (e.g., epidemiological study design).

5. The method for selecting studies is not clear and need further explanation.

6. Quality assessments for all included papers should be shown as a supplementary file.

7. Why authors used "Random effects model". More details are needed to explain the statistical plan.

8. Applying egger weighted regression method was stated in statistical methods but was not reported in result.

9. There is substantive heterogeneity in outcomes, which the authors have reported but have not done anything.

The random-effects model is not a good solution for a high source of heterogeneity. The author can conduct a meta-analysis in sub-groups and report the possible sources of heterogeneity.

10. To investigate the publication bias, a funnel plot has been used. Since this plot and other methods of evaluation, the publication bias in this study is based on the value of the effect size and the standard error, and in descriptive studies, there is no effect size. What do

they represent?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Mohammad Javad Nasiri

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments for Authers.docx

PLoS One. 2021 Oct 8;16(10):e0258295. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258295.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


17 Jul 2021

Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1:

Comment #1: The date of electronic database searching is not mentioned in method or else, maybe it needs updating electronic database searching.

Response: Thank you very much for your critical observation and we apologize for not indicating the timeline for the literature search. To address this comment, we have added the timeline of our literature search since we were recorded the time of our search period (Line 105-106).

Comment #2: On fig 1, out of 195 studies 136 studies were excluded in which 59 were eligible for full text evaluation, but the authors wrote 60.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments and we apologize for the error. We have corrected the errors in fig 1 based on your comments.

Comment #3: Lack of consistency of using words through out of the manuscript for example in line 34, 37 ‘extrapulmonary but in line 54 extra-pulmonary

Further proofread and copyediting are required for this manuscript. The paper must be carefully checked by a native English speaker.

Response: We have used the words consistently across the document and the language usage and grammar related errors have been corrected by native English speaker colleagues.

Reviewer #2:

Comment #1: Literature Searches and Search terms are incomplete. This is suboptimal for publication for systematic review. Please attach search terms that were used in each database as supplement for Data source and search strategies in the manuscript. Please provide details search terms in supplementary documents. Please attach syntax used in each database as supplementary. Authors should also search Embase in their study.

Response: Thank you for your critical observations and informative comments. We have attached our search strategy for the databases we used during our search and those that support advanced search as supporting file name "S1: File". For example, advanced search for Google scholar cannot be supported and we just used PICO based on the title only. You are absolutely right, EMBASE should be searched. However, since EMBASE is not freely accessed in our setup, we could not search it. We believe that the majority of the articles published from Ethiopia are on MEDLINE/PubMed, which can be accessed through PubMed search. Thus, the articles that would be missed by our search are small.

Comment #2: When Pubmed is used for the search, MESH terms are always recommended to be included.

Response: Indeed, we apologize for not indicating as we used MESH term during PubMed search. To address this comment, we have added the phrase which indicates that we used MESH term in our search strategy (Line 110).

Comment #3: Evaluation of gray literature is unclear.

Response: We have evaluated the quality of gray literature as any article published as a peer reviewed article. However, we included only one gray literature, which could not seriously affect the quality of critical appraisal.

Comment #4: Please report here the process of search and inclusion/exclusion of the study and the reasons of exclusion in detail. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be better detailed (e.g., epidemiological study design).

Response: Thank you very much for your critical observation. We have addressed your comment by elaborating the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study in detail (line 113-121).

Comment #5: The method for selecting studies is not clear and need further explanation.

Response: The PRISMA flow chart clearly indicates the study selection process of our review. In addition to the PRISMA flow chart, the text we have provided on page # 6; lines 123 – 130 under the subheading study selection clearly indicated our study selection process. To address your comment, we have elaborated on our selection criteria during inclusion and exclusion criteria provision.

Comment #6: Quality assessments for all included papers should be shown as a supplementary file.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions. Based on your comments, we have corrected and attached the quality results of each included study as the supplementary file.

Comment #7: Why authors used "Random effects model". More details are needed to explain the statistical plan.

Response: The random-effects model was used because of the heterogeneity of the true effect sizes of the included studies. Thus, we believe the explanation provided is enough for the readers. Interested body can read reference books that explain the random-effects model.

Comment #8: Applying egger weighted regression method was stated in statistical methods but was not reported in result.

Response: We apologize for not reporting the result of publication bias in the previous version of our manuscript. To address this comment, we have added the results of the funnel plot and Egger test to show the presence of publication bias (Line196-199; page # 9)

Comment #9: There is substantive heterogeneity in outcomes, which the authors have reported but have not done anything. The random-effects model is not a good solution for a high source of heterogeneity. The author can conduct a meta-analysis in sub-groups and report the possible sources of heterogeneity.

Response: Yes, you are right to conduct sub-group analysis to assess the reason for heterogeneity. However, since the studies included in this review were few, they cannot allow us to conduct sub-group analysis based on several factors. Moreover, the random-effects model is the recommended model when there is heterogeneity between the true effect sizes, as we have indicated in the statistical analysis part of the manuscript.

Comment #10: To investigate the publication bias, a funnel plot has been used. Since this plot and other methods of evaluation, the publication bias in this study is based on the value of the effect size and the standard error, and in descriptive studies, there is no effect size. What do

they represent?

Response: The study specific and pooled results are presented on the forest plots (Fig 2 to Fig 4). Thus, reporting standard errors and effect sizes separately are meaningless.

Yours, Sincerely

Getu Diriba

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Mohammad Mehdi Feizabadi

24 Sep 2021

Drug resistance and its risk factors among extrapulmonary tuberculosis in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-21-12541R1

Dear Dr. Getu Diriba 

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mohammad Mehdi Feizabadi, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Mohammad Javad Nasiri

Acceptance letter

Mohammad Mehdi Feizabadi

29 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-12541R1

Drug resistance and its risk factors among extrapulmonary tuberculosis in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Dear Dr. Diriba:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mohammad Mehdi Feizabadi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Literature search strategy from searched databases.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. Detailed data of the included studies.

    (XLSX)

    S3 File. PRISMA checklist.

    (DOC)

    S4 File. Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale for cross sectional studies.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments for Authers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES