↓ Skip to main content

Comparative performance characteristics of the urine lipoarabinomannan strip test and sputum smear microscopy in hospitalized HIV-infected patients with suspected tuberculosis in Harare, Zimbabwe

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparative performance characteristics of the urine lipoarabinomannan strip test and sputum smear microscopy in hospitalized HIV-infected patients with suspected tuberculosis in Harare, Zimbabwe
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12879-016-1339-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lynn Sodai Zijenah, Gerard Kadzirange, Tsitsi Bandason, Maria Mary Chipiti, Bevel Gwambiwa, Forget Makoga, Pauline Chungu, Philip Kaguru, Keertan Dheda

Abstract

In Zimbabwe, sputum smear microscopy (SSM) is the routinely used TB diagnostic tool in hospitalised HIV-infected patients. However, SSM has poor sensitivity in HIV-infected patients. We compared performance of urine lipoarabinomannan strip test (LAM) and SSM among hospitalized HIV-infected patients with suspected TB. Hospitalized HIV-infected patients with suspected TB were randomized to LAM plus SSM or SSM alone groups as part of a larger multi-country parent study. Here we present a comparison of LAM versus SSM performance from the Zimbabwe study site. LAM analyses (grade 2 cut-off) were conducted using (i) a microbiological reference standard (MRS; culture positivity for M.tb and designated definite TB) and (ii) a composite reference standard (CRS; definite TB plus probable TB i.e. patients with clinical TB excluded from the culture negative group). CRS constituted the primary analysis. 82/457 (18 %) of the patients randomized to the LAM group were M.tuberculosis culture positive. Using CRS, sensitivity (%, 95 % CI) of LAM was significantly higher than SSM [49.2 (42.1-56.4) versus 29.4(23.2-36.3); p < 0.001]. Specificity and PPV were 98.1 %, and 95.8 %, respectively. By contrast, using MRS, LAM sensitivity was similar to SSM and specificity was significantly lower, however, the combined sensitivity of LAM and SSM was significantly higher than that of SSM alone, p = 0.009. Using CRS, LAM sensitivity (%, CI) was CD4 count dependent [60.6(50.7-69.8) at ≤50 cells/μL; 40.0(22.7-59.4) at 51-100 cells/μL, and 32.8(21.0-46.3) at >100 cells/μL. The combined sensitivity of LAM and SSM was higher than SSM alone being highest at CD4 counts <50 cells/μL [67.6(57.9-76.3); p = <0.001]. Specificity of LAM or SSM alone, or of combined LAM and SSM was >97 % in all the 3 CD4 strata. Among hospitalized HIV-infected patients with suspected TB, the sensitivity of LAM is significantly higher than that of SSM, especially at low CD4 counts. LAM and SSM are complimentary tests for diagnosis of TB in HIV-infected patients. We recommend a combination of LAM and SSM for TB diagnosis in HIV-infected patients with low CD4 counts in HIV/TB co-endemic countries, where alternative methods are unavailable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Other 6 6%
Other 24 25%
Unknown 23 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 5%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 25 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,338,537
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#6,482
of 7,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#332,256
of 395,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#82
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.