| Literature DB >> 23144768 |
Penelope Miremba1, Joan N Kalyango, William Worodria, Henry Mugerwa, Ethel Nakakawa, Benon B Asiimwe.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of frontloading and the standard WHO method for diagnosis of pulmonary TB at Mulago Hospital in order to validate the technique in this setting.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23144768 PMCID: PMC3483226 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048531
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Socio-demographic characteristics of 221 patients who attended Assessment Centre and the TB clinic, Mulago Hospital complex, between January and April inclusive, 2011.
| Characteristic | Number | Proportion (%) | |
|
| <20 | 05 | 2.3 |
| 20–29 | 77 | 34.8 | |
| 30–39 | 65 | 29.4 | |
| 40–49 | 32 | 14.5 | |
| 50+ | 19 | 8.6 | |
| NA | 23 | 10.4 | |
|
| Never married | 109 | 49.3 |
| Married | 92 | 41.6 | |
| Divorced | 20 | 9.1 | |
|
| Male | 135 | 61.1 |
| Female | 86 | 38.9 | |
|
| Positive | 79 | 35.7 |
| Negative | 110 | 49.8 | |
| Not done | 32 | 14.5 | |
|
| 2 weeks –2 months | 101 | 45.7 |
| >2 months | 120 | 54.3 | |
|
| Yes | 165 | 74.7 |
| No | 56 | 25.3 | |
|
| Yes | 133 | 60.2 |
| No | 88 | 39.8 | |
|
| Yes | 105 | 47.5 |
| No | 116 | 52.5 | |
|
| Yes | 120 | 54.3 |
| No | 101 | 45.7 | |
|
| Yes | 18 | 08.1 |
| No | 203 | 91.9 | |
NA = information not available *Prior history of TB treatment, not currently on treatment.
Performance of frontloading and WHO standard scheme for 221 patients, at the National referral hospital, Mulago.
| Technique | Smearresult | Culturepositive | Culturenegative | Total |
|
| Positive | 102 | 15 | 117 |
| Negative | 10 | 94 | 104 | |
| Total | 112 | 109 | 221 | |
|
| Positive | 102 | 09 | 111 |
| Negative | 10 | 100 | 110 | |
| Total | 112 | 109 | 221 |
At least one smear was positive.
Performance of the three samples by HIV status.
| Category | Smear status | HIV status | |||
| Positive (%) | Negative (%) | Not done (%) | Total (%) | ||
|
| Positive | 53 (51) | 42 (40.3) | 9 (8.7) | 104 (100) |
| Negative | 26 (22.2) | 68 (58.1) | 23 (19.7) | 117 (100) | |
|
| Positive | 54 (52.9) | 40 (39.2) | 8 (7.9) | 102 (100) |
| Negative | 25 (21) | 70 (58.8) | 24 (20.2) | 119 (100) | |
|
| Positive | 49 (49.5) | 39 (39.4) | 11 (11.1) | 99 (100) |
| Negative | 23 (22.6) | 59 (57.8) | 20 (19.6) | 102 (100) | |
| Not done | 7 (35) | 12 (60) | 1 (5) | 20 (100) | |
The 1st smear alone identified 117/221 as smear positive, the 2nd (Xspot) smear identified 2 more making it 119/221 as smear positive, and the 3rd smear identified 3 more in addition, making it 122/221 as positive.
Sensitivity and specificity of frontloading versus standard sputum smears for diagnosis of TB in 221 patients, Mulago hospital, 2011; Negative and positive predictive values of frontloading versus standard sputum smears for diagnosis of TB in 204 patients, Mulago Hospital, 2011.
|
| ||||
| Approach | Sensitivity | 95% CI | Specificity | 95% CI |
|
| 91.1% | 84.2%, 95.6% | 86.2% | 78.3%, 92.1% |
|
| 91.1% | 84.2%, 95.6% | 91.7% | 84.9%, 96.2% |
| PPV = Positive Predictive Value, NPV = Negative Predictive Value, CI = confidence interval | ||||
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 87.2% | 79.7%, 92.6% | 90.4% | 83.0%, 98.3% |
|
| 91.9% | 85.2%, 96.2% | 90.9% | 83.9%, 95.6% |
PPV = Positive Predictive Value, NPV = Negative Predictive Value, CI = confidence interval.