Table 1.
Performance comparison between indirect and inhibitory ELISA for diagnosis of NTM infection in patients with lymphadenopathies.
| Method for diagnosis of anti-IFN-γ autoantibody | No. of positive samples/total no. of samples with NTM infection | % Sensitivity (95% CI) | No. of negative samples/total no. of samples without NTM infection | % Specificity (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indirect ELISA | 74/82 | 90.2 ns (81.7–95.7) | 7/20 | 35.0* (15.4–59.2) |
| Inhibitory ELISA | 76/82 | 92.7 ns (84.8–97.3) | 20/20 | 100* (83.2–100) |
| No. of samples with NTM infection/total no. of positive samples | % PPV (95% CI) | No. of samples without NTM infection/total no. of negative samples | % NPV (95% CI) | |
| Indirect ELISA | 74/87 | 85.1 (75.8–91.8) | 7/15 | 46.7 (21.3–73.4) |
| Inhibitory ELISA | 76/76 | 100 (95.3–100) | 20/26 | 76.9 (60.7–87.8) |
Statistically significant differences were analyzed by McNemar’s test: ns, non-significant (P = 0.7728); *P = 0.0009. Abbreviation: CI, confident interval; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.