Table 3. Associations of Schistosoma diagnostics with visual-FGS.

Participant Characteristics		Visual FGS not detected	Visual FGS detected	Crude OR	P- value *	Adjusted OR **	P- value †
Schistosoma diagnostics (Reviewer 1)		n=303	n=165
Eggs on urine microscopy	Not detected	287 (94.7)	151 (91.5)	reference	0.3	reference	0.2
	Detected	16 (5.3)	14 (8.5)	1.66 (0.73 – 3.74)		1.68 (0.74 – 3.81)
Circulating anodic antigen ~	Not detected	261 (86.1)	131 (80.4)	reference	0.1	reference	0.1
	Detected	42 (13.9)	32 (19.6)	1.52 (0.92 – 2.52)		1.49 (0.91 – 2.51)
Any positive genital PCR	DNA not detected	288 (95.1)	155 (93.9)	reference	0.8	reference	0.7
	DNA detected	15 (4.9)	10 (6.0)	1.24 (0.54 – 2.82)		1.27 (0.55 – 2.94)
Schistosoma Diagnostics (Reviewer 2)		n=152	n=265
Eggs on urine microscopy ††	Not detected	147 (96.7)	243 (91.7)	reference	0.06	reference	0.07
	Detected	5 (3.3)	22 (8.3)	2.65 (0.95 – 9.17)		2.65 (0.95 – 9.19)
Circulating anodic antigen ~	Not detected	131 (86.7)	215 (81.4)	reference	0.2	reference	0.2
	Detected	20 (13.3)	49 (18.6)	1.49 (0.85 – 2.62)		1.49 (0.85 – 2.63)
Any positive genital PCR	DNA not detected	146 (96.1)	248 (93.6)	reference	0.3	reference	0.3
	DNA detected	6 (3.9)	17 (6.4)	1.69 (0.64 – 4.33)		1.67 (0.64 – 4.36)

*Chi squared p-value unless otherwise noted

**Adjusted for age

†Likelihood ratio test p-value

Missing values not included in the table: ~ (n=2)

††Odds Ratios and p-values obtained through exact logistic regression in both crude and adjusted analyses