Skip to main content
. 2015 May 22;10(5):e0127725. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127725

Table 4. Performance Characteristics of Screened Symptom for Bacteriologically Positive TB, by Age Status, China, 2010.

Screened symptoms No. of participants with defined symptoms No. of TB cases with defined symptoms Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV AUC
Cough or haemoptysis of any duration
Participants aged under 65 15409 95 51.6 95.5 0.6 99.9 0.74
Participants aged 65 and above 5272 67 51.1 88.8** 1.3 99.8 0.70
All participants 20681 162 51.4 94.7 0.8 99.9 0.73
Cough of any duration
Participants aged under 65 15380 95 51.6 95.5 0.6 99.9 0.74
Participants aged 65 and above 5263 67 51.1 88.9** 1.3 99.8 0.70
All participants 20643 162 51.4 94.7 0.8 99.9 0.73
Cough ≥2 weeks
Participants aged under 65 3439 77 41.8 99.0 2.2 99.9 0.70
Participants aged 65 and above 1853 58 44.3** 96.1** 3.1 99.8 0.70
All participants 5292 135 42.9 98.7 2.5 99.9 0.71
Cough ≥3 weeks
Participants aged under 65 2150 59 32.1 99.4 2.7 99.9 0.66
Participants aged 65 and above 1241 47 35.9** 97.4** 3.7 99.8 0.67
All participants 3391 106 33.7 99.1 3.1 99.9 0.66
Haemoptysis
Participants aged under 65 206 8 4.3 99.9 3.8 99.9 0.52
Participants aged 65 and above 82 6 4.6* 99.8** 7.1 99.7 0.52
All participants 288 14 4.4 99.9 4.8 99.9 0.52
Suspected symptom defined by China NTP
Participants aged under 65 3514 78 42.4 99.0 2.2 99.9 0.71
Participants aged 65 and above 1876 58 44.3** 96.1** 3.0 99.8 0.70
All participants 5390 136 43.2 98.6 2.5 99.9 0.71

PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve

In analysis of cough and haemoptysis, the AUC for any duration of cough were significantly larger than for haemoptysis (P<0.01 for both subpopulations)

When analysis was conducted in participants under aged 65, the sensitivities of cough of any duration/ Cough or haemoptysis of any duration were significantly higher than that of suspected symptom defined by China NTP (P<0.01).

* Compared with participants aged under 65, P<0.05

** Compared with participants aged under 65, P<0.01