Diseases masking and delaying the diagnosis of urogenital tuberculosis.

摘要: To the editor: We read with interest article by Kulchavenya and Kholtobin on urogenital tuberculosis (UGTB) [Kulchavenya Kholtobin, 2015], in which authors provide information about unusual UGTB cases. While claim that they have carried out a systematic review of topic, we completely disagree statement. Systematic reviews represent highest level evidence available for making clinical decisions, particularly if are based high quality studies strict accurate methodology has been followed [Akobeng, 2005]. A comprehensive exhaustive search primary attempt to answer question is key starting point every review; manuscript it not clear what want answer. The title points towards diseases mimic delay diagnosis UGTB, but instead reviewed uncommon presentations no focus at all delay. Second, strategy included reviewing only PubMed database, considered an insufficient performing literature [Suarez-Almazor et al. 2000]. Other databases such as Embase should incorporated. In addition, most were case reports, guidelines cases reports CARE Institute Health Economics tool series [Gagnier 2013; Moga 2012]. Third, selection criteria provided; was usual or rare UGTB. Finally, results presented narrative outcomes their investigation. Considering difficult entity diagnose, can be first step fill lack topic. We suggest use Preferred Reporting Items Reviews Meta-analysis (PRISMA) [Moher 2009]. These stand ensuring transparent thorough report data. Authors’ endorsement this kind checklists warrants excellence research evidence-based medicine.