Skip to main content
. 2019 Oct 21;2019(10):CD011420. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011420.pub3

Lawn 2017.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling Cross‐sectional, prospective and consecutive enrolment
Patient characteristics and setting Presenting signs and symptoms: HIV‐infected adults included irrespective of symptoms. A positive WHO symptom screen was reported for 91% of participants
 Age: median 36 (IQR 29‐42)
 Sex, female: 61%
 HIV infection: 100%
 Median CD4 cell count per µL: 149 (IQR 55 to 312)
History of tuberculosis: 6%
 Sample size: 413
 Clinical setting: inpatients
 Country: South Africa
 Tuberculosis incidence rate: 567 per 100,000
 Number (proportion) of tuberculosis cases in the study: 139 (32.6%)
Index tests LF‐LAM
Target condition and reference standard(s) Target: pulmonary tuberculosis, extrapulmonary tuberculosis, mycobacteraemia
Reference standard: any of mycobacterial culture (liquid) or nucleic acid amplification test; extrapulmonary specimens tested for all
Flow and timing All patients were included in the analysis
Comparative  
Notes The study authors performed sputum induction for individuals who could not expectorate. They included individuals without respiratory specimen and attempted to identify extrapulmonary tuberculosis
Methodological quality
Item Authors' judgement Risk of bias Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? Yes    
Was a case‐control design avoided? Yes    
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Yes    
    Low Low
DOMAIN 2: Index Test All tests
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? Yes    
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? Yes    
    Low Low
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? Yes    
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? Yes    
    Low Low
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? Yes    
Did all patients receive the same reference standard? No    
Were all patients included in the analysis? Yes    
    Low