Cargando…
One-sample two-smear versus two-sample two-smear approach for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy of one-sputum sample two-smear approach for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from January 2012 to December 2015 were analyzed to find (1) number of smear positives (SPs) by spot (S) sample with one and two smears; (2) numb...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5896177/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29692576 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JLP.JLP_145_17 |
_version_ | 1783313792898170880 |
---|---|
author | Chandra, T. Jaya |
author_facet | Chandra, T. Jaya |
author_sort | Chandra, T. Jaya |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy of one-sputum sample two-smear approach for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from January 2012 to December 2015 were analyzed to find (1) number of smear positives (SPs) by spot (S) sample with one and two smears; (2) number of SPs by morning (M) sample with one and two smears; and (iii) number of SPs by two samples with two smears, that is, same-day (SS(2)) and spot morning (SM) approaches. The Chi-square test was used to evaluate the statistical difference in SP cases. RESULTS: With one-sample two-smear approach, the smear positivity (SPT) was 87% and 87.5%, for S and M samples, respectively, for Ziehl–Neelsen (ZN) staining; whereas, SPT was 96% and 97%, respectively, for S and M samples, for fluorescent staining (FS) technique. With two-sample two-smear approach, for ZN staining, SPT was 89% each and for FS technique, SPT was 97% and 99%, respectively, for SS(2) and SM approaches. The difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05) between one- and two-sample approaches in the staining techniques. CONCLUSION: Significant number of SP cases are identified by S sample two-smear approach. Thus, the World Health Organization/Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme can initiate S sample two-smear approach for the diagnosis of PT. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5896177 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58961772018-04-24 One-sample two-smear versus two-sample two-smear approach for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis Chandra, T. Jaya J Lab Physicians Original Article BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy of one-sputum sample two-smear approach for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from January 2012 to December 2015 were analyzed to find (1) number of smear positives (SPs) by spot (S) sample with one and two smears; (2) number of SPs by morning (M) sample with one and two smears; and (iii) number of SPs by two samples with two smears, that is, same-day (SS(2)) and spot morning (SM) approaches. The Chi-square test was used to evaluate the statistical difference in SP cases. RESULTS: With one-sample two-smear approach, the smear positivity (SPT) was 87% and 87.5%, for S and M samples, respectively, for Ziehl–Neelsen (ZN) staining; whereas, SPT was 96% and 97%, respectively, for S and M samples, for fluorescent staining (FS) technique. With two-sample two-smear approach, for ZN staining, SPT was 89% each and for FS technique, SPT was 97% and 99%, respectively, for SS(2) and SM approaches. The difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05) between one- and two-sample approaches in the staining techniques. CONCLUSION: Significant number of SP cases are identified by S sample two-smear approach. Thus, the World Health Organization/Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme can initiate S sample two-smear approach for the diagnosis of PT. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5896177/ /pubmed/29692576 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JLP.JLP_145_17 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Journal of Laboratory Physicians http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Chandra, T. Jaya One-sample two-smear versus two-sample two-smear approach for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis |
title | One-sample two-smear versus two-sample two-smear approach for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis |
title_full | One-sample two-smear versus two-sample two-smear approach for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis |
title_fullStr | One-sample two-smear versus two-sample two-smear approach for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis |
title_full_unstemmed | One-sample two-smear versus two-sample two-smear approach for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis |
title_short | One-sample two-smear versus two-sample two-smear approach for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis |
title_sort | one-sample two-smear versus two-sample two-smear approach for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5896177/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29692576 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JLP.JLP_145_17 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chandratjaya onesampletwosmearversustwosampletwosmearapproachforthediagnosisofpulmonarytuberculosis |