Table 3.
The performance of various methods for distinguishing between ATB and LTBI in Qiaokou cohort.
| Variables | Cutoff value | AUC (95% CI) | Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) | PPV (95% CI) | NPV (95% CI) | PLR (95% CI) | NLR (95% CI) | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ESAT-6 SFC | 61 | 0.669 (0.646–0.692) | 35.73% (32.95–38.61%) | 90.23% (88.19–91.95%) | 80.66% (76.91–83.92%) | 55.18% (52.71–57.62%) | 3.66 (2.97–4.5) | 0.71 (0.68–0.75) | 61.19% |
| CFP-10 SFC | 76 | 0.744 (0.723–0.765) | 44.03% (41.12–46.98%) | 90.85% (88.86–92.52%) | 84.59% (81.40–87.32%) | 58.74% (56.22–61.21%) | 4.81 (3.90–5.94) | 0.62 (0.58–0.65) | 65.91% |
| TBAg SFC | 89 | 0.775 (0.755–0.795) | 50.77% (47.82–53.73%) | 90.12% (88.08–91.85%) | 85.43% (82.51–87.93%) | 61.62% (59.05–64.13%) | 5.14 (4.21–6.28) | 0.55 (0.51–0.58) | 69.16% |
| Diagnostic model based on BRE | 0.673 | 0.846 (0.829–0.862) | 59.71% (56.78–62.57%) | 91.58% (89.66–93.17%) | 88.99% (86.53–91.06%) | 66.59% (64.00–69.08%) | 7.09 (5.73–8.78) | 0.44 (0.41–0.47) | 74.60% |
| Diagnostic model based on combination of BRE and T-SPOT assay | 0.587 | 0.909 (0.897–0.922) | 78.03% (75.49–80.38%) | 90.23% (88.19–91.95%) | 90.11% (88.04–91.85%) | 78.27% (75.75–80.60%) | 7.99 (6.57–9.70) | 0.24 (0.22–0.27) | 83.73% |
ATB, active tuberculosis; LTBI, latent tuberculosis infection; ESAT-6, early secreted antigenic target 6; CFP-10, culture filtrate protein 10; TBAg, tuberculosis-specific antigens; SFC, spot-forming cells; BRE, blood routine examination; AUC, area under the curve; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; PLR, positive likelihood ratio; NLR, negative likelihood ratio; CI, confidence interval.