Figure 1.
Summary flow chart of patient categorisation and investigations performed at recruitment.
Table 1.
Comparison of the clinical and laboratory parameters in the definite TB meningitis (culture or PCR positive; n = 39) and non TB meningitis (n = 54) groups.
Figure 2.
Lipoarabinomannan antigen performance outcomes using CSF when comparing definite, probable and non-TB meningitis groups.
(A) shows the definite TBM compared with the unselected non-TB meningitis group and the corresponding ROC curve (B). Responses when the non-TB meningitis group was stratified by rapid test results (Gram stain or CLAT positive, versus, Gram stain and CLAT both negative) are shown in (C) with the corresponding ROC curve (D). Note (C) for the sake of clarity does not show the probable TB meningitis group.
Table 2.
Performance outcomes (sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and accuracy) of the LAM ELISA (95% CI), at different cut-points in the definite TBM and non-TBM groups, using CSF.
Table 3.
LAM performance outcomes in definite TBM and non-TBM patients when stratified by HIV status and CD4 count.
Table 4.
Univariable and multivariable analysis for the prediction of definite TB meningitis.
Table 5.
Comparative performance outcomes of the clinical prediction rule, LAM, and a combination of LAM and the clinical prediction rule for the diagnosis of definite TB meningitis.