. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Feb 17.

Published in final edited form as: Lancet Respir Med. 2015 Mar 24;3(6):451–461. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00095-8

Table 3.

Meta-analysis findings for estimated Xpert and microscopy sensitivity and specificity against the reference standards

	Number of studies (number of children)	Pooled and predicted median sensitivity (pooled 95% credible interval; predicted 95% credible interval)	Pooled and predicted median specificity (pooled 95% credible interval; predicted 95% credible interval)
Xpert against culture
Expectorated and induced sputum	12 (2380)^{12,14–16,18–20,22,23,25}^*^†	62% (51–73; 30–87)	98% (97–99; 90–100)
Gastric lavage	7 (1319)^{12–14,17,20,21}^†	66% (51–81; 33–91)	98% (96–99; 91–100)
Xpert against culture-negative and started on ATT
Expectorated and induced sputum	8 (1512)^{14–16,18,19,23,25}^*	2% (1–3; 0–6)	100% (99–100; 99–100)
Smear microscopy against culture
Expectorated and induced sputum	12 (2380)^{12,14–16,18–20,22,23,25}^*^†	26% (14–39; 4–69)	100% (99–100; 94–100)
Gastric lavage	7 (1319)^{12–14,17,20,21}^†	22% (12–35; 6–51)	99% (97–100; 93–100)

Includes published and one unpublished study. ATT=antituberculosis treatment.

Expectorated and induced sputum cohorts from reference 16 included as separate studies.

^†

Also includes data from Walters E, Desmond Tutu TB Centre, personal communication.