Skip to main content

Table 5 Comparative performance of SSM versus LAM; and the combination of SSM and LAM versus SSM alone using composite 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 SM only LAM only SM plus LAM p-value
Sensitivity (95 % CI)        
 CD4 (cells/μL)        
 ≤50 35.8 (26.8-45.5) 60.6 (50.7-69.8) <0.001 35.8 (26.8-45.5)* 60.6 (50.7-69.8) 67.6 (57.9-76.3)* <0.001
 51-100 30.0 (14.7-49.4) 40.0 (22.7-59.4) 0.417 30.0 (14.7-49.4) 40.0 (22.7-59.4) 50.0 (31.3-68.7) >0.05
 >100 17.2 (8.6-29.4) 32.8 (21.0-46.3) 0.054 17.2 (8.6-29.4)* 32.8 (21.0-46.3) 41.4 (28.6-55.1)* 0.004
Specificity (95 % CI)        
 CD4 (cells/μL)        
 ≤50 97.2 (92.2-99.4) 97.2 (92.2-99.4) >0.05 97.2 (92.2-99.4) 97.2 (92.2-99.4) 97.2 (92.2-99.4) >0.05
 51-100 100.0 (92.5-100.0) 97.9 (88.7-99.9) >0.05 100.0 (92.5-100.0) 97.9 (88.7-99.9) 97.9 (88.7-99.9) >0.05
 >100 100.0 (96.5-100.0) 99.0 (94.8-100.0) >0.05 100.0 (96.5-100.0) 99.0 (94.8-100.0) 99.0 (94.8-100.0) >0.05
  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)