Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparative performance of SSM versus LAM; and the combination of SSM and LAM versus SSM alone using the microbiological reference standard, stratified by CD4 count

From: Comparative performance characteristics of the urine lipoarabinomannan strip test and sputum smear microscopy in hospitalized HIV-infected patients with suspected tuberculosis in Harare, Zimbabwe

N = 457 SSM versus LAM Combined SSM with LAM versus SSM alone
  SSM only LAM only p-value SSM only LAM only SSM plus LAM p-value
Sensitivity (95 % CI)        
 CD4 (cells/μL)        
 ≤50 63.8 (48.5-77.3) 76.6 (62.0-87.7) 0.176 63.8 (48.5-77.3)* 76.6 (62.0-87.7) 87.2 (74.3-95.2)* 0.008
 51-100 50.0 (24.70- 75.3) 43.8 (19.8-70.1) 0.723 50.0 (24.70- 75.3) 43.8 (19.8-70.1) 62.5 (35.4-84.8) >0.05
 >100 36.8 (16.3-61.6) 36.8 (16.3- 61.6) - 36.8 (16.3-61.6) 36.8 (16.3- 61.6) 52.6 (28.9-75.6) >0.05
Specificity (95 % CI)        
 CD4 (cells/μL)        
 ≤50 93.0 (88.1-96.3) 80.7 (74.0-86.8) 0.001 93.0 (88.1-96.3)* 80.7 (74.0-86.8) 78.9 (72.1-84.8)* 0.001
 51-100 98.4 (91.2-100.0) 90.2 (79.8-96.3) 0.052 98.4 (91.2-100.0) 90.2 (79.8-96.3) 90.2 (79.8-96.3) >0.05
 >100 97.9 (94.0-99.6) 90.9 (85.0-95.1) 0.010 97.9 (94.0-99.6)* 90.9 (85.0-95.1) 89.5 (83.3-94.0)* 0.004
  1. SSM sputum smear microscopy, LAM Urine Lipoarabinomannan strip test
  2. P-value indicate significant differences between patient groups (marked with * and number to indicate comparison group) * - Significantly Different (p ≤ 0.05) NS – Not Significantly Different (p > 0.05)