Table 2. Diagnostic performance of DZM&DFM against culture on LJ (gold standard) in detection of bacilli in clinical samples obtained from patients at Mubende referral hospital, Uganda.
| Evaluated test | Gold standard | ||
| DZM/DFM* | DZM/LJ | DFM/LJ | |
| Positive Negative | Positive Negative | Positive Negative | |
| Positive | 25 7 | 24 8 | 53 8 |
| Negative | 36 276 | 42 270 | 13 270 |
| Estimate (95%CI) | Estimate (95%CI) | ||
| Sensitivity (%) | 36.4(24.9–49.1) | 80.3(68.7–89.1) | |
| Specificity (%) | 97.1(94.4–98.7) | 97.1((94.4–98.7) | |
| Positive predictive value (%) | 75.1(56.6–88.5) | 86.9(75.8–94.2) | |
| Negative predictive value (%) | 86.5(82.2–90.1) | 95.4(92.3–97.5) | |
| Kappa agreement measure (%) | 41.6(36.6–46.6) | 79.7(74.3–85.1) | |
*DFM is used as the gold standard with DZM. Note that the rest of the comparison is done with Results on LJ media as the gold standard. The status (+/−) of the reference tool will be the column status while the test tool is the row. For example (DZM/DFM) = row (+/−)/col(+/−).