Skip to main content

Table 5 TB diagnostic performance of CFP-10pep, smear, culture, and TST

From: Evaluation of a serum-based antigen test for tuberculosis in HIV-exposed infants: a diagnostic accuracy study

Comparison Participantsa CFP-10 Sensitivity 2nd assay Sensitivity p valueb CFP-10 Specificity 2nd assay Specificity p value CFP-10 Accuracy 2nd assay Accuracy p value
CFP-10pep vs X-ray 183 82.3% (81.9–82.7) 88.2% (87.9–88.5) 0.346 85.2% (85.0–85.4) 74.7% (74.4–75.1) 0.019 84.1% (84.0–84.2) 79.7% (79.6–79.9) 0.015
CFP-10pep vs smear 140 85.9% (85.5–86.3) 15.6% (15.2–16.0) < 0.001 80.2% (79.8–80.6) 89.4% (89.2–89.7) 0.127 82.8% (82.6–83.0) 55.7% (55.3–56.0) < 0.001
CFP-10pep vs culture 136 88.3% (87.9–88.6) 11.6% (11.3–12.0) < 0.001 80.2% (79.8–80.6) 100% (95.3–100) < 0.001 83.8% (83.6–84.0) 61.0% (60.6–61.37) < 0.001
CFP-10pep vs TST 377 81.8% (81.3–82.2) 68.1% (67.5–68.8) 0.083 93.8% (93.8–93.9) 82.9% (82.8–83.0) < 0.001 91.7% (91.7–91.8) 80.3% (80.2–80.4) 0.007
  1. The results listed in this Table indicate percent diagnostic sensitivity, specificity and accuracy with an estimated 95% CI adjusted for sample size
  2. aParticipants who were conducted both CFP-10pep assay and secondary assay (X-ray, smear, culture, and TST, respectively)
  3. bListed p values indicate the probability for a significant difference between the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy of CFP-10 and the test listed in the first column of the matching row by McNemar’s test