Table 1. Participant characteristics and association with worm burden.
| Characteristic | Bottom 25% CAA, N = 1481 | Top 25% CAA, N = 1471 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| BMI kg/m 2 (IQR) | 16.94(15.65,18.23) | 16.42(15.38,17.69) | 0.11 |
| Sex | 0.4 | ||
| F | 77(52%) | 70(48%) | |
| M | 71(48%) | 77(52%) | |
| Age | 0.6 | ||
| 10 | 45(30%) | 34(23%) | |
| 11 | 21(14%) | 28(19%) | |
| 12 | 24(16%) | 24(16%) | |
| 13 | 30(20%) | 27(18%) | |
| 14 | 18(12%) | 19(13%) | |
| 15 | 10(6.8%) | 15(10%) | |
| Site | <0.001 | ||
| Dei | 38(26%) | 29(20%) | |
| Kayonga | 34(23%) | 20(14%) | |
| Kivuje | 22(15%) | 23(16%) | |
| Nyakagei | 14(9.5%) | 53(36%) | |
| Panyigoro | 40(27%) | 22(15%) | |
| KatoKatz: epg(IQR) | 24(0,84) | 390(159,906) | <0.001 |
| KatoKatz Missing(NA) | 40 | 33 |
1Median (interquartile range,IQR); n (%)
2Wilcoxon rank sum test; Pearson’s Chi-squared test
Of 148 individuals in the bottom 25% of worm burden by CAA test, 40 had did not have KatoKatz data recorded, while of 147 individuals in the Top 25% of worm burden 33 did not have Kato Katz data recorded. There was a significant difference in the median values of epg as measured by Kato-Katz as categorized by CAA worm burden with median(IQR) for the bottom 25% CAA being 24(0,84) and the top 25% CAA being 390(159,906).KatoKatz definitions of infection intensity according to WHO classification is light infections<99epg and heavy infections being >400 epg [50]. 390epg median approximates the 400 epg cutoff of WHO heavy infections for the top 25% of worm burden.