Cargando…

A Comparison of Tools Used for Tuberculosis Diagnosis in Resource-Limited Settings: A Case Study at Mubende Referral Hospital, Uganda

BACKGROUND: This study compared TB diagnostic tools and estimated levels of misdiagnosis in a resource-limited setting. Furthermore, we estimated the diagnostic utility of three-TB-associated predictors in an algorithm with and without Direct Ziehl-Neelsen (DZM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was obta...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Muwonge, Adrian, Malama, Sydney, Bronsvoort, Barend M. de C., Biffa, Demelash, Ssengooba, Willy, Skjerve, Eystein
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4072677/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24967713
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100720
_version_ 1782323002184040448
author Muwonge, Adrian
Malama, Sydney
Bronsvoort, Barend M. de C.
Biffa, Demelash
Ssengooba, Willy
Skjerve, Eystein
author_facet Muwonge, Adrian
Malama, Sydney
Bronsvoort, Barend M. de C.
Biffa, Demelash
Ssengooba, Willy
Skjerve, Eystein
author_sort Muwonge, Adrian
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This study compared TB diagnostic tools and estimated levels of misdiagnosis in a resource-limited setting. Furthermore, we estimated the diagnostic utility of three-TB-associated predictors in an algorithm with and without Direct Ziehl-Neelsen (DZM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was obtained from a cross-sectional study in 2011 conducted at Mubende regional referral hospital in Uganda. An individual was included if they presented with a two weeks persistent cough and or lymphadenitis/abscess. 344 samples were analyzed on DZM in Mubende and compared to duplicates analyzed on direct fluorescent microscopy (DFM), growth on solid and liquid media at Makerere University. Clinical variables from a questionnaire and DZM were used to predict TB status in multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazard models, while optimization and visualization was done with receiver operating characteristics curve and algorithm-charts in Stata, R and Lucid-Charts respectively. RESULTS: DZM had a sensitivity and specificity of 36.4% (95% CI = 24.9–49.1) and 97.1%(95% CI = 94.4–98.7) compared to DFM which had a sensitivity and specificity of 80.3%(95% CI = 68.7–89.1) and 97.1%(95% CI = 94.4–98.7) respectively. DZM false negative results were associated with patient’s HIV status, tobacco smoking and extra-pulmonary tuberculosis. One of the false negative cases was infected with multi drug resistant TB (MDR). The three-predictor screening algorithm with and without DZM classified 50% and 33% of the true cases respectively, while the adjusted algorithm with DZM classified 78% of the true cases. CONCLUSION: The study supports the concern that using DZM alone risks missing majority of TB cases, in this case we found nearly 60%, of who one was an MDR case. Although adopting DFM would reduce this proportion to 19%, the use of a three-predictor screening algorithm together with DZM was almost as good as DFM alone. It’s utility is whoever subject to HIV screening all TB suspects.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4072677
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40726772014-07-02 A Comparison of Tools Used for Tuberculosis Diagnosis in Resource-Limited Settings: A Case Study at Mubende Referral Hospital, Uganda Muwonge, Adrian Malama, Sydney Bronsvoort, Barend M. de C. Biffa, Demelash Ssengooba, Willy Skjerve, Eystein PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: This study compared TB diagnostic tools and estimated levels of misdiagnosis in a resource-limited setting. Furthermore, we estimated the diagnostic utility of three-TB-associated predictors in an algorithm with and without Direct Ziehl-Neelsen (DZM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was obtained from a cross-sectional study in 2011 conducted at Mubende regional referral hospital in Uganda. An individual was included if they presented with a two weeks persistent cough and or lymphadenitis/abscess. 344 samples were analyzed on DZM in Mubende and compared to duplicates analyzed on direct fluorescent microscopy (DFM), growth on solid and liquid media at Makerere University. Clinical variables from a questionnaire and DZM were used to predict TB status in multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazard models, while optimization and visualization was done with receiver operating characteristics curve and algorithm-charts in Stata, R and Lucid-Charts respectively. RESULTS: DZM had a sensitivity and specificity of 36.4% (95% CI = 24.9–49.1) and 97.1%(95% CI = 94.4–98.7) compared to DFM which had a sensitivity and specificity of 80.3%(95% CI = 68.7–89.1) and 97.1%(95% CI = 94.4–98.7) respectively. DZM false negative results were associated with patient’s HIV status, tobacco smoking and extra-pulmonary tuberculosis. One of the false negative cases was infected with multi drug resistant TB (MDR). The three-predictor screening algorithm with and without DZM classified 50% and 33% of the true cases respectively, while the adjusted algorithm with DZM classified 78% of the true cases. CONCLUSION: The study supports the concern that using DZM alone risks missing majority of TB cases, in this case we found nearly 60%, of who one was an MDR case. Although adopting DFM would reduce this proportion to 19%, the use of a three-predictor screening algorithm together with DZM was almost as good as DFM alone. It’s utility is whoever subject to HIV screening all TB suspects. Public Library of Science 2014-06-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4072677/ /pubmed/24967713 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100720 Text en © 2014 Muwonge et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Muwonge, Adrian
Malama, Sydney
Bronsvoort, Barend M. de C.
Biffa, Demelash
Ssengooba, Willy
Skjerve, Eystein
A Comparison of Tools Used for Tuberculosis Diagnosis in Resource-Limited Settings: A Case Study at Mubende Referral Hospital, Uganda
title A Comparison of Tools Used for Tuberculosis Diagnosis in Resource-Limited Settings: A Case Study at Mubende Referral Hospital, Uganda
title_full A Comparison of Tools Used for Tuberculosis Diagnosis in Resource-Limited Settings: A Case Study at Mubende Referral Hospital, Uganda
title_fullStr A Comparison of Tools Used for Tuberculosis Diagnosis in Resource-Limited Settings: A Case Study at Mubende Referral Hospital, Uganda
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Tools Used for Tuberculosis Diagnosis in Resource-Limited Settings: A Case Study at Mubende Referral Hospital, Uganda
title_short A Comparison of Tools Used for Tuberculosis Diagnosis in Resource-Limited Settings: A Case Study at Mubende Referral Hospital, Uganda
title_sort comparison of tools used for tuberculosis diagnosis in resource-limited settings: a case study at mubende referral hospital, uganda
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4072677/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24967713
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100720
work_keys_str_mv AT muwongeadrian acomparisonoftoolsusedfortuberculosisdiagnosisinresourcelimitedsettingsacasestudyatmubendereferralhospitaluganda
AT malamasydney acomparisonoftoolsusedfortuberculosisdiagnosisinresourcelimitedsettingsacasestudyatmubendereferralhospitaluganda
AT bronsvoortbarendmdec acomparisonoftoolsusedfortuberculosisdiagnosisinresourcelimitedsettingsacasestudyatmubendereferralhospitaluganda
AT biffademelash acomparisonoftoolsusedfortuberculosisdiagnosisinresourcelimitedsettingsacasestudyatmubendereferralhospitaluganda
AT ssengoobawilly acomparisonoftoolsusedfortuberculosisdiagnosisinresourcelimitedsettingsacasestudyatmubendereferralhospitaluganda
AT skjerveeystein acomparisonoftoolsusedfortuberculosisdiagnosisinresourcelimitedsettingsacasestudyatmubendereferralhospitaluganda
AT muwongeadrian comparisonoftoolsusedfortuberculosisdiagnosisinresourcelimitedsettingsacasestudyatmubendereferralhospitaluganda
AT malamasydney comparisonoftoolsusedfortuberculosisdiagnosisinresourcelimitedsettingsacasestudyatmubendereferralhospitaluganda
AT bronsvoortbarendmdec comparisonoftoolsusedfortuberculosisdiagnosisinresourcelimitedsettingsacasestudyatmubendereferralhospitaluganda
AT biffademelash comparisonoftoolsusedfortuberculosisdiagnosisinresourcelimitedsettingsacasestudyatmubendereferralhospitaluganda
AT ssengoobawilly comparisonoftoolsusedfortuberculosisdiagnosisinresourcelimitedsettingsacasestudyatmubendereferralhospitaluganda
AT skjerveeystein comparisonoftoolsusedfortuberculosisdiagnosisinresourcelimitedsettingsacasestudyatmubendereferralhospitaluganda