Skip to main content
. 2021 Jun 23;16(6):e0253658. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253658

Table 3. Subgroup analysis for different types of tuberculosis compared with a composite reference standard.

TB type Specimen type No. of studies No. of specimens Sensitivity (95% CI) Specificity (95% CI) PPV (95% CI) NPV (95% CI) DOR (95% CI) AUC (95% CI)
Pulmonary TB Plasma 3 252 78% (70–84%) 97% (93–99%) 99% (97–100%) 82% (62–100%) 29 (10–85) 0.99 (0.97–1.00)
Extrapulmonary TB All 9 929 65% (61–69%) 99% (96–100%) 100% (100–100%) 59% (38–80%) 61 (20–185) 0.98 (0.93–1.00)
Plasma 3 212 78% (68–86%) 97% (93–99%) 99% (96–100%) 87% (72–100%) 35 (10–115) 0.99 (0.97–1.00)
Non-plasma 6 717 63% (59–67%) 99% (97–100%) 100% (100–100%) 45% (35–54%) 97 (15–615) 0.82 (0.78–0.85)
Pleural effusion (Tuberculosis pleurisy) 3 500 68% (64–73%) 100% (97–100%) 100% (100–100%) 49% (43–55%) 54 (11–268) 0.90 (0.35–1.00)
Cerebrospinal fluid (Tuberculosis meningitis) 2 152 55% (45–64%) 100% (92–100%) 100% (98–100%) 49% (39–59%) 26 (4–184) 0.77 (0.70–0.84)
Ascitic fluid (Abdominal tuberculosis) 1 65 40% (27–54%) 90% (56–100%) 96% (87–100%) 21% (9–34%) 4 (1–26) 0.65 (0.52–0.76)

TB, tuberculosis; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; DOR, diagnostic odds ratio, AUC, the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve.