Skip to main content
. 2018 Jun 4;12(6):e0006562. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006562

Table 1. Estimated true prevalence, sensitivity and arithmetic mean egg counts from the 615 participants with complete baseline data according to the four different diagnostic methods.

A. lumbricoides Hookworm T. trichiura
Estimated true Prevalence 64.0 (62.2–67.1) 54.8 (53.1–57.9) 94.7 (94.0–96.0)
Eggs per gram of stool 18125 (15024–21724) 474 (402–558) 1999 (1762–2252)
Single Kato-Katz No. of positive participants (%) 347 (56.4) 288 (46.8) 553 (89.9)
Eggs per gram of stool 14361 (12099–16622) 509 (415–603) 1760 (1517–2003)
Sensitivity 87.8 (83.6–90.7) 85.5 (80.4–88.1) 94.8 (93.3–95.6)
Duplicate Kato-Katz No. of positive participants % 353 (57.4) 299 (48.6) 559 (90.9)
Eggs per gram of stool 14175 (11866–16485) 474 (391–556) 1725 (1489–1961)
Sensitivity 89.8 (85.6–92.3) 89.1 (84.0–91.6) 96.1 (94.7–96.7)
Quadruplicate Kato-Katz No. of positive participants (%) 384 (62.4) 330 (53.7) 579 (94.2)
Eggs per gram of stool 13478 (11435–15521) 434 (359–508) 1796 (1544–2048)
Sensitivity 97.7 (93.1–99.9) 98.3 (92.7–99.9) 99.5 (98.1–99.9)
FECPACKG2 No. of positive participants (%) 297 (48.3) 240 (39.0) 383 (62.3)
Eggs per gram of stool 3048 (2501–3595) 245 (197–293) 171 (148–194)
Sensitivity 75.6 (72.0–77.7) 71.5 (67.4–95.3) 65.8 (64.9–66.2)
Specificity 96.9 (94.8–98.9) 91.3 (89.3–93.1) 95.3 (91.8–97.6)

Numbers in brackets show 95% confidence interval, unless otherwise indicated