Table 3.
Estimates of sensitivity and specificity of the four diagnostic tests applied to the urine samples from eight selected schools which were also assayed at the Leiden University Medical Center
| POC-CCA trace negative | POC-CCA trace positive | |
|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity (%) (95% BCI) | ||
| Kato–Katz in Rwanda | 14.1 (8.3, 19.8) | 2.5 (0.2%, 6.6%) |
| CCA in Rwanda | 46.1 (35.6, 56.1) | 82.5 (77.6%, 86.9%) |
| CCA in Leiden | 94.2 (85.3%, 99.5%) | 93.6 (89.0%, 97.3%) |
| CAA in Leiden | 97.0 (90.6%, 99.8%) | 90.5 (83.6%, 96.9%) |
| Covariance KK and CAA | 0.6 (0.0%, 2.2%) | 0.3 (0.0%, 1.0%) |
| Covariance CCAR and CCAL | 7.0 (3.2%, 11.2%) | – |
| Specificity (%) (95% BCI) | ||
| Kato–Katz in Rwanda | 98.2 (95.0, 99.8) | 98.9 (97.1%, 99.9%) |
| CCA in Rwanda | 85.3 (80.4%, 90.6) | 53.5 (50.0%, 57.6%) |
| POC-CCA in Leiden | 85.9 (80.3%, 92.3%) | 98.2 (94.4%, 99.9%) |
| CAA in Leiden | 83.1 (77.9%, 87.7%) | 49.2 (45.8%, 54.2%) |
| Covariance KK and CAA | 12.1 (8.9%, 15.3%) | 21.9 (19.2%, 23.8%) |
| Covariance CCAR and CCAL | 10.3 (6.8%, 13.6%) | – |
| PPV of CCA in Rwanda (%) (95% BCI) | ||
| Trace as negative | 68.3 (58.0, 78.5) | – |
| Trace as positive | 64.5 (59.9%, 68.9%) | – |
| Trace | 61.6 (50.1%, 72.1%) | – |
BCI = Bayesian credibility interval; POC-CCA = point-of-care circulating cathodic antigen.