Table 3.
Diagnostic Validity of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra Assays on Stool Specimen Compared With Bacteriological Confirmation With Induced Sputum Specimen Among Children (< 15 Years of Age) With Presumptive Pulmonary Tuberculosis Enrolled From Selected 4 Tertiary Care Hospitals in Dhaka, Bangladesh, January 2018–April 2019 (N = 447)
| Tests on Stool Specimen | Bacteriological Confirmation With Induced Sputum | Sensitivity, % (95% CI) | Specificity, % (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | |||
| No. (%)a | No. (%)a | |||
| Total |
29 (100.0) |
418 (100.0) |
… | … |
| Xpert MTB/RIF | ||||
| Positive |
11 (37.9) |
0 (0.0) |
37.9 (22.7–56.0) | 100.0 (99.1–100.0) |
| Negative |
18 (62.1) |
418 (100.0) |
… | … |
| Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assayb | ||||
| Positive |
17 (58.6) |
43 (10.3) |
58.6 (40.7–74.5) | 89.7 (86.4–92.3) |
| Negative |
12 (41.4) |
374 (89.7) |
… | … |
| Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (trace call as negative)b | ||||
| Positive |
11 (37.9) |
1 (0.2) |
37.9 (22.7–56.0) | 99.8 (98.7–99.9) |
| Negative |
18 (62.1) |
416 (99.8) | … | … |
Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval.
aColumn percentage.
bOne stool specimen showed invalid result on Xpert Ultra assay.