Skip to main content
. 2015 Mar 6;2(1):ofv030. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofv030

Table 2.

Odds Ratios and Adjusted Odds Ratios of the Comparison Between Intervention and Control Healthcare Facilities Adjusted for Age, HIV Status, TB Retreatment, and Gender and Clustering by Healthcare Facility

Process/Outcome Indicator Intervention Sites (n = 10) Control Sites (n = 2) OR (95% CI) P Value Adjusted OR (95% CI) P Value Sample Size for Regression
Presumptive TB Cases
1 Proportion of presumptive TB cases with a sputum smeara,b 64.70% (4119/6366) 12.66% (244/1928) 12.65 (5.60, 28.55) <.001 N/A
2 Proportion of presumptive TB cases with an HIV testa 63.37% (4034/6366) 5.29% (102/1928) 30.97 (5.11, 187.94) <.001 N/A
3 Proportion of smear-positive TB cases 7.97% (433/5436) 19.67% (48/244) 0.35 (0.19-0.66) <.001 0.39 (0.20–0.76) .005 4508
4 Proportion of smear-positive new TB cases started on treatmentc 87.76% (380/433) 50.00% (24/48) 7.17 (1.98, 26.03) .003 7.59 (2.19, 26.33) .001 478
TB Patients
5 Proportion of TB patients tested for HIV 98.75% (475/481) 97.78% (44/45) 1.80 (0.38, 8.49) .458 1.78 (0.35, 8.79) .498 509
6 Proportion of TB/HIV coinfected started on ART 66.67% (132/198) 72.73% (8/11) 0.75 (0.33, 1.72) .497 0.77 (0.34, 1.78) .545 209
7 Proportion of TB patients who are smear or bacteriologically positive 71.73% (345/481) 77.78% (35/45) 0.72 (0.33, 1.59) .380 0.94 (0.41, 2.18) .888 517
8 Proportion of TB patients who are sputum smear negative or extrapulmonary TB cases 10.81% (52/481) 11.11% (5/45) 0.97 (0.68, 1.38) .866 0.73 (0.48, 1.12) .152 517
9 Proportion of new TB patients who completed or cured (of all those with a treatment outcome recorded) 42.21% (176/417) 13.33% (6/45) 4.74 (2.03, 11.12) <.001 4.89 (2.24, 10.67) <.001 453
10 Proportion of new TB patients who were lost to follow-up (of all those with a treatment outcome recorded) 20.38% (85/417) 86.67% (39/45) 0.03 (0.01, 0.11) <.001 0.04 (0.01, 0.09) <.001 453

Abbreviations: ART, antiretroviral therapy; CI, confidence interval; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; N/A, not applicable; OR, odds ratio; TB, tuberculosis.

a For indicators 1–2, individual analysis was not possible because these indicators use 2 separate data sources that were not linked at the individual level.

b Laboratory tests conducted during outreach in the intervention arm (N = 1317) were excluded from the numerator because these patients did not have a MF5 completed.

c For proportion of smear-positive patients started on treatment, the analysis did not adjust for HIV status because missing data for this variable dropped the control arm sample size by 60% from 48 to 19.