TABLE 4.
Comparison of specificity between QFT-Plus and QFT-GIT among low-risk populationsa
| Study reference | Country | Sample size | Specificity (%) |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QFT-Plus | QFT-GIT | Difference (95% CI) | |||
| 25 | USA | 262 non-HCW, including 51 NTM patients | 98.1 | 98.9 | −0.8 (−2.8 to 1.3) |
| 30 | Germany | 77 low-risk HCW | 87.0 | 89.6 | −2.6 (−12.7 to 7.5) |
| 15 | Italy | 19 non-HCW | 100 | 100 | 0.0 (0.0 to 0.0) |
| 16 | South Korea | 27 non-HCW | 92.6 | 100 | −7.4 (−17.3 to 2.5) |
| 31 | Japan | 212 non-HCW | 97.0 | 98.6 | −1.6 (−4.4 to 1.2) |
| 28 | USA | 626 no-risk HCW | 97.0 | 97.9 | −0.9 (−2.6 to 0.8) |
a
HCW, health care worker; NTM, nontuberculous mycobacteria; CI, confidence interval.