Table 4.
Diagnostic performances of routine and potential methods for TB in paediatric populations relative to the metabonomic signatures in this study.
| Diagnostic Test | Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| AFB Smear microscopy5 | 26% (14–39) | 100% (99–100) |
| Xpert MTB/Rif assay5 | 62% (51–73) | 98% (97–99) |
| Urine lipoarabinomannan (LAM)54 | 48% (38–59) | 61% (56–65) |
| TB-LAMP55 | 78% (71–83) | 98% (96–99) |
| 51 transcript RNA expression signature13 | 83% (67–94) | 84% (75–93) |
| T-cell activation marker-TB assay (TAM-TB)16 | 83% (57–96) | 97% (89–100) |
| 1H NMR spectroscopy | 69% (56–73) | 83% (73–93) |
| HILIC | 59% (49–67) | 89% (75–92) |
| Lipidomics ESI− | 58% (53–64) | 89% (80–96) |
| Lipidomics ESI+ | 67% (60–71) | 86% (75–93) |