Table 1.
Algorithm for patient categorization into different categories of the composite reference standard.
Fig 1.
Flowchart of the patients included and diagnostic classifications.
Indeterminate cases were excluded from the CRS reference standard. All percentages report the proportions of the respective patients, relative to the 743 patients studied.
Table 2.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the studied patients according to composite reference standard classification.
Fig 2.
Venn diagram showing the relationship between test positivity for Xpert, culture and AFB smears of pulmonary (A) and extrapulmonary (B) samples.
Table 3.
Pulmonary and extrapulmonary specimens: Comparison AFB smear, culture (LJ), and Xpert assay.
Fig 3.
Gold Standard: Culture results and CRS classification.
The circle in the plot represents the sensitivity and specificity of each diagnostic method, the black line indicates the confidence interval (95% confidence interval). CI, confidence interval; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.
Table 4.
Kappa coefficient of comparison of conventional microbiological methods with Xpert.
Fig 4.
Number of positive pulmonary and extrapulmonary samples based on the method used in HIV-positive and -negative patients.
Fig 5.
Sensitivity and specificity of the thee tests Xpert, AFB smear and culture in population HIV positive and not HIV.