. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Jun 8.

Published in final edited form as: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2012 Jun 14;16(8):1108–1112. doi: 10.5588/ijtld.11.0614

Table 2.

Diagnostic accuracy of sputum smear microscopy and LAM ELISA alone and in combination for sputum-scarce patients undergoing sputum induction

	M. tuberculosis culture-positive vs. -negative (n = 53)
Diagnostic test(s)	Sensitivity n/N, % (95%CI)	Specificity n/N, % (95%CI)	PPV n/N, % (95%CI)	NPV n/N, % (95%CI)
Sputum smear microscopy	5/9, 56 (27–81)	44/44, 100 (92–100)	5/5, 100 (57–100)	44/48, 92 (81–97)
Sputum LAM ELISA	5/9, 56 (27–81)	21/44, 48 (34–62)	5/28, 18 (8–36)	21/25, 84 (65–94)
Sputum LAM ELISA in smear-negative patients	2/4, 50 (15–85)	NA	NA	NA
Combined sputum smear microscopy and LAM ELISA	7/9, 78 (45–94)	21/44, 48 (34–62)	7/30, 23 (12–41)	21/23, 91 (73–98)

LAM = lipoarabinomannan; ELISA = enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; CI = confidence interval; PPV = positive predictive value; NPV = negative predictive value; NA = not available.