| Literature DB >> 21765809 |
Luis Eduardo Cuevas1, Najla Al-Sonboli, Lovett Lawson, Mohammed Ahmed Yassin, Isabel Arbide, Nasher Al-Aghbari, Jeevan Bahadur Sherchand, Amin Al-Absi, Emmanuel Nnamdi Emenyonu, Yared Merid, Mosis Ifenyi Okobi, Juliana Olubunmi Onuoha, Melkamsew Aschalew, Abraham Aseffa, Greg Harper, Rachel Mary Anderson de Cuevas, Sally Jane Theobald, Carl-Michael Nathanson, Jean Joly, Brian Faragher, Stephen Bertel Squire, Andrew Ramsay.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) in resource-limited settings relies on Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN) smear microscopy. LED fluorescence microscopy (LED-FM) has many potential advantages over ZN smear microscopy, but requires evaluation in the field. The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity/specificity of LED-FM for the diagnosis of pulmonary TB and whether its performance varies with the timing of specimen collection. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21765809 PMCID: PMC3134458 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001057
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Med ISSN: 1549-1277 Impact factor: 11.069
Figure 1Depiction of flow of participants.
Characteristics of the patients on enrolment.
| Characteristic | Sub-Category | Ethiopia ( | Nepal ( | Nigeria ( | Yemen ( | All ( |
|
| 34.9 (14.3) | 43.6 (17.7) | 34.3 (11.1) | 41 (17.9) | 38.6 (16.1) | |
|
| Male | 243 (52.5) | 344 (65) | 319 (46.6) | 388 (59.6) | 1,294 (52.9) |
| Female | 220 (47.5) | 182 (35) | 353 (51.5) | 378 (49.3) | 1,133 (46.3) | |
| Unknown | 5 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 17 (0.7) | |
|
| Single | 87 (18.5) | 85 (16.2) | 237 (34.5) | 133 (17.4) | 542 (22.2) |
| Married | 317 (67.7) | 439 (83.5) | 371 (54.1) | 552 (72) | 1,679 (68.7) | |
| Separated/widowed | 5 (1) | 2 (0.4) | 64 (9.3) | 81 (10.5) | 152 (6.2) | |
| Unknown | 59 (11.6) | 0 | 13 (1.9) | 0 | 72 (2.9) | |
|
| Rural | 273 (58.3) | 39 (7.4) | 90 (13.1) | 388 (50.7) | 790 (32.3) |
| Study town | 116 (24.8) | 238 (45.2) | 549 (81.1) | 352 (46) | 1,255 (51.3) | |
| Other town | 49 (10.5) | 249 (47.3) | 33 (4.8) | 26 (3.4) | 357 (14.6) | |
| Unknown | 30 (6.4) | 0 | 13 (1.9) | 0 | 43 (1.8) | |
|
| Illiterate | 281 (60.0) | 164 (31.2) | 58 (8.5) | 517 (67.5) | 1,020 (41.7) |
| Literate | 127 (27.1) | 362 (68.8) | 614 (89.6) | 249 (32.5) | 1,352 (55.3) | |
| Unknown | 60 (12.8) | 0 | 13 (1.9) | 0 | 73 (3) | |
|
| Cough duration | 7.8 (9.2) | 12.8 (13.6) | 8.9 (16.7) | 7.8 (11.9) | 9.3 (13.5) |
| Chest pain | 321 (68.5) | 424 (80.3) | 443 (64.7) | 680 (88.8) | 1,868 (76.4) | |
| Weight loss | 274 (58.5) | 331 (62.9) | 437 (63.8) | 608 (79.4) | 1,650 (67.5) | |
| Fever | 259 (55.3) | 243 (46.2) | 461 (66.3) | 625 (81.6) | 1,588 (64.9) | |
| Night sweats | 319 (68.1) | 261 (49.6) | 291 (42.5) | 599 (78.2) | 1,470 (60.1) | |
| Loss of appetite | 313 (66.8) | 361 (68.6) | 301 (43.9) | 527 (68.8) | 1,502 (61.4) | |
| Haemoptysis | 40 (9) | 90 (17.1) | 50 (7.3) | 208 (27.2) | 388 (15.9) | |
|
| Positive | 4 (0.9) | 2 (0.4) | 236 (34.4) | 0 | 242 (9.9) |
| Negative | 33 (7.1) | 8 (1.5) | 109 (15.9) | 9 (1.2) | 159 (6.5) | |
| Unknown | 431 (92) | 516 (98) | 340 (49.6) | 757 (98.8) | 2,044 (83.6) | |
|
| Positive | 159 (34) | 58 (11) | 120 (17.5) | 192 (25.1) | 529 (21.6) |
| Negative | 270 (57.7) | 444 (84.4) | 551 (81) | 561 (72.2) | 1,826 (74.6) | |
| Contaminated | 10 (2.1) | 23 (4.4) | 14 (2) | 10 (1.3) | 57 (2.3) | |
| Not available | 29 (6.2) | 1 (0.2) | 0 (0) | 3 (0.4) | 33 (1.3) |
Age in years, cough duration in weeks. p<0.01 for all variables. SD, standard deviation.
Sensitivity and specificity of using two or three ZN and LED-FM smears per patient.
| Number of Smears | Smear Result | Culture-Positive ( | Culture-Negative ( | ||||
| ZN Smear Microscopy | LED-FM | After Review of Scanty FM Smears | ZN Smear Microscopy | LED-FM | After Review of Scanty FM Smears | ||
| 2 | Positive* | 348 (65.8) | 385 (72.8) | 369 (70.0) | 36 (2.0) | 166 (9.1) | 103 (5.7) |
| Negative | 181 (34.2) | 144 (27.2) | 158 (30.0) | 1,790 (98.0) | 1,660 (90.9) | 1,718 (94.3) | |
| 3 | Positive | 373 (70.5) | 408 (77.1) | 394 (74.5) | 63 (3.5) | 217 (11.9) | 137 (7.5) |
| Negative | 156 (29.5) | 121 (22.9) | 135 (25.5) | 1,763 (96.5) | 1,609 (88.1) | 1,689 (92.5) | |
“Positive” defined as a patient with ≥1 smear with ≥1 AFB. Patients with incomplete sets were classified according to the smears available.
See description in Methods.
Absolute difference the use of two- or three-smear ZN smear microscopy and LED-FM schemes would make per 1,000 persons tested in situations with similar TB prevalence.
| Test | Absolute Difference per 1,000 Persons | ||||
| Pre-test prevalence of 21.6% | True positive | True negative | False positive | False negative | Number with correct diagnosis |
| Two-smear ZN smear microscopy | 142 | 768 | 16 | 74 | 910 |
| Two-smear LED-FM | 157 | 713 | 71 | 59 | 870 |
| Two-smear LED-FM after EQA | 151 | 739 | 45 | 65 | 890 |
| Three-smear ZN smear microscopy | 152 | 757 | 27 | 64 | 909 |
| Three-smear LED-FM | 167 | 691 | 93 | 49 | 858 |
| Three-smear LED-FM after EQA | 161 | 725 | 59 | 55 | 886 |
Proportion of patients with culture-positive TB results observed in this study.