Table 1.
Diagnostic performance of the Kato-Katz method for C. sinensis infection
| No. of smears | No. of positive cases | No. of negative cases | Prevalence (95% CI) (%) | False negative rate (%) | GMEPG of the positive cases (1)a | Overestimation of GMEPG (%)b | GMEPG of the positive cases (2)c | GMEPG of the false negative casesc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 stool × 1 smear | 45 | 352 | 11.3 (8.2–14.5) | 41.6 | 126.4 | 105.2 | 121.2 | 23.8d |
| 1 stool × 2 smears | 49 | 348 | 12.3 (9.1–15.6) | 36.4 | 119.9 | 94.7 | 100.8 | 26.0e |
| 1 stool × 3 smears | 55 | 342 | 13.9 (10.4–17.3) | 28.6 | 91.0 | 47.8 | 79.0 | 33.1f |
| 2 stools × 1 smear | 64 | 333 | 16.1 (12.5–19.8) | 16.9 | 95.4 | 55.0 | 96.1 | 6.9g |
| 2 stools × 2 smears | 73 | 324 | 18.4 (14.6–22.2) | 5.2 | 74.1 | 20.3 | 70.2 | 5.7h |
| 2 stools × 3 smears | 77 | 320 | 19.4 (15.5–23.3) | 0.0 | 61.6 | 0.0 | 61.6 | – |
aOnly the available smears were calculated
bThe calculation was based on the GMEPG of the positive cases (1)
cAll six smears in ‘gold’ standard were calculated
dt(75) = 4.39, P < 0.001, compared to the GMEPG of the positive cases (2)
et(75) = 3.42, P = 0.001, compared to the GMEPG of the positive cases (2)
ft(75) = 1.97, P = 0.053, compared to the GMEPG of the positive cases (2)
gt(75) = 9.62, P < 0.001, compared to the GMEPG of the positive cases (2)
ht(75) = 2.87, P = 0.005, compared to the GMEPG of the positive cases (2)