Background: Obtaining respiratory samples to diagnose tuberculosis in young children is challenging. Oral swabs are alternative noninvasive specimens for microbiology. Methods: We conducted an interim prospective diagnostic accuracy evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) on oral swabs for pulmonary tuberculosis in children aged <5 years in Uganda. Most children had 2 consecutive swabs collected in a single cryovial (double swabs). Reference tests consisted of Ultra and culture on 2 nasopharyngeal aspirates and 1 gastric aspirate and Ultra on 1 stool. Children were classified as having confirmed tuberculosis, unconfirmed tuberculosis, or unlikely tuberculosis per the National Institutes of Health. Diagnostic accuracy was determined against a microbiological reference standard and a composite reference standard. Results: From August 2021 to February 2024, 444 children were enrolled, of whom 399 had complete classifications: 33 had confirmed tuberculosis, 269 had unconfirmed tuberculosis, 70 had unlikely tuberculosis, and 27 were unclassifiable. The median age was 16 months and 17% had HIV. Most children (398/399) had oral swabs collected, all with conclusive Ultra results. The sensitivity of double swabs was 6.9% with a microbiological reference standard (95% CI, 1.9%–22.0%) and 1.8% with a composite reference standard (95% CI, .8%–4.1%). Specificity was at least 99%. Swabs detected tuberculosis in 4 children with negative reference test results, of whom 3 had unconfirmed tuberculosis. Conclusions: The low sensitivity of Ultra on double swabs precludes its role as a principal diagnostic approach in young children. However, detection of tuberculosis in children who were not otherwise microbiologically diagnosed suggests the utility of oral swabs as add-on samples to increase yield.

Background: Basic emergency care is an important component of health system strengthening in resource-limited settings in sub-Saharan Africa. Objectives: This scoping review mapped and synthesised evidence on the implementation, capacity-building approaches, and policy implications of the WHO/ICRC Basic Emergency Care (BEC) course in the region. Methods: Twenty studies from 13 countries were included. Reported facilitators of BEC implementation included perceived relevance to frontline practice, practical and structured course content, contextual adaptation, mentorship, and training-of-trainers or cascade approaches. Reported barriers included time constraints, staffing shortages, limited infrastructure and emergency care resources, and technological challenges affecting digital reinforcement strategies. Across studies, BEC was generally associated with short-term improvements in provider knowledge, confidence, and perceived competence. However, implementation outcomes were reported inconsistently and were largely limited to acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness, with less evidence on adoption, cost, penetration, and sustainability. Evidence on longer-term retention, practice change, patient outcomes, and broader system-level impact remained limited. Conclusions: Overall, BEC appears to be a potentially useful and context-appropriate approach to strengthening frontline emergency care training, but stronger longitudinal and implementation-focused evaluations are needed.