| Literature DB >> 31723704 |
Shehnaz Firdaus1, Iqbal R Kaur1, Bineeta Kashyap1, Rajnish Avasthi2, N P Singh1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Until newer, rapid, economical tools are introduced for diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in resource limited settings, optimization of sputum smear examination for increasing case detection remains of utmost priority. The aim of the study was to detect presumptive TB patients using Front Loading sputum microscopy and compare it with Standard method.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 31723704 PMCID: PMC6850237 DOI: 10.1016/j.jctube.2017.05.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Tuberc Other Mycobact Dis ISSN: 2405-5794
Fig. 1Age and gender based distribution of patients.
Sputum smear positivity per patient.
Comparison of AFB microscopy by Front Loading and Standard method of sputum microscopy.
| Front Loading sputum microscopy Positive | Front Loading sputum microscopy Negative | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard method of sputum microscopy Positive | 73 (13.2) | 5 (0.9) | 78 (14.1) |
| Standard method of sputum microscopy Negative | 0 | 474 (85.9) | 474 (85.9) |
| Total | 73 (13.2) | 479 (86.8) | 552 (100) |
Fig. 2Incremental yield in positivity by Standard method of sputum microscopy.
Grading of AFB positive smears of Front Loading and Standard method of sputum microscopy (by RNTCP AFB grading*).
| Grading of AFB positive smears | Front Loading sputum microscopy | Standard method of sputum microscopy | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spot 1 | Spot 2 | Spot 1 | Early morning | |
| 3+ | 18 (25.7) | 18 (27.3) | 18 (25.7) | 29 (38.2) |
| 2+ | 16 (22.9) | 17 (25.8) | 16 (22.9) | 24 (31.6) |
| 1+ | 22 (31.4) | 22 (33.3) | 22 (31.4) | 16 (21.1) |
| Scanty | 14 (20) | 9 (13.6) | 14 (20) | 7 (9.1) |
| 70 (100) | 66 (100) | 70 (100) | 76 (100) | |
*3+ - >10 AFB/oil immersion field (oif)
2 + - 1 to 10 AFB/oif
1 + - 10 to 99 AFB/100oif
Scanty- 1–9 AFB/100oif
Number of cultures showing growth of M.tuberculosis on LJ per patient.
Diagnostic comparison of Front Loading and Standard method of sputum microscopy with gold standard of culture on LJ media.
| Culture on LJ ( | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Positive predictive | Negative predictive | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| value (%) | value (%) | ||||||
| Positive ( | Negative ( | ||||||
| Front Loading sputum microscopy | Positive ( | 46 | 27 | 68.65 | 94.43 | 63.01 | 95.61 |
| Negative ( | 21 | 458 | |||||
| Standard method of sputum microscopy | Positive ( | 47 | 31 | 70.14 | 93.6 | 60.25 | 95.78 |
| Negative (n = 474) | 20 | 454 | |||||
NS-not significant
Comparison of AFB grading of positive smears by Front Loading sputum microscopy and Standard method of sputum microscopy with M.tuberculosis isolation and TAT of isolation on LJ media.
| Front Loading sputum microscopy | Standard method of sputum microscopy | Total | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3+ | 2+ | 1+ | Scanty | Neg | 3+ | 2+ | 1+ | Scanty | Neg | |||
| Isolation | Growth on LJ | 18 | 10 | 12 | 6 | 21 | 25 | 10 | 10 | 2 | 20 | 67 |
| (90) | (62.5) | (50) | (46.2) | (4.4) | (83.3) | (43.5) | (58.9) | (25) | (4.2) | (12.1) | ||
| No growth on LJ | 2 | 6 | 12 | 7 | 458 | 5 | 13 | 7 | 6 | 454 | 485 | |
| (10) | (37.5) | (50) | (53.8) | (95.6) | (16.7) | (56.5) | (41.1) | (75) | (95.8) | (87.9) | ||
| Total | 20 | 16 | 24 | 13 | 479 | 30 | 23 | 17 | 8 | 474 | 552 | |
| TAT of culture on LJ | 4 weeks | 6 | 7 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 11 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 25 |
| (24) | (28) | (24) | (8) | (16) | (44) | (12) | (24) | (4) | (16) | (37.3%) | ||
| 5 weeks | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 13 | |
| (31) | (7) | (15.3) | (1.3) | (23.1) | (15.3) | (15.3) | (46.8) | (19.4%) | ||||
| 6 weeks | 6 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 15 | |
| (40) | (6.7) | (13.4) | (13.4) | (26.8) | (46.7) | (26.8) | (26.8) | (22.3%) | ||||
| 7 weeks | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7 | |
| (28.6) | (14.3) | (14.3) | (14.3) | (28.6) | (28.6) | (14.3) | (14.3) | (14.3) | (28.6) | (10.4%) | ||
| 8 weeks | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 7 | |
| (14.3) | (14.3) | (71.5) | (28.6) | (14.3) | (57.2) | (10.4%) | ||||||
Fig. 3Comparison of AFB grading of positive smears by front loading sputum microscopy and standard method of sputum microscopy with isolation of M. tuberculosis on LJ medium.