ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2022
Diagnostic Accuracy of Urine Lipoarabinomannan Testing in Early Morning Urine versus Spot Urine for Diagnosis of Tuberculosis among People with HIV.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The value of LAM and LprG in extracellular vesicles in the diagnostic and therapeutic field of renal tuberculosis.Frontiers in tuberculosis · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Fujifilm SILVAMP TB LAM (FujiLAM) assay offers improved sensitivity compared to Determine TB LAM Ag (AlereLAM) for detecting tuberculosis (TB) among people with HIV. Here, we examined the diagnostic value of FujiLAM testing on early morning urine versus spot urine and the added value of a two-sample strategy. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of FujiLAM on cryopreserved urine samples collected and stored as part of a prospective cohort of adults with HIV presenting for antiretroviral treatment in Ghana. We compared FujiLAM sensitivity and specificity in spontaneously voided urine samples collected at inclusion (spot urine) versus in the first voided early morning urine (morning urine) and for a one (spot urine) versus two samples (spot and morning urine) strategy. Diagnostic accuracy was determined against both microbiological (using sputum culture and Xpert MTB/RIF testing of sputum and urine to confirm TB) and composite reference standards (including microbiologically confirmed and probable TB cases). Paired urine samples of spot and morning urine were available for 389 patients. Patients had a median CD4 cell count of 176 cells/μL (interquartile range [IQR], 52 to 361). Forty-three (11.0%) had confirmed TB, and 19 (4.9%) had probable TB. Overall agreement for spot versus morning urine test results was 94.6% (kappa, 0.81). Compared to a microbiological reference standard, the FujiLAM sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 67.4% (51.5 to 80.9) for spot and 69.8% (53.9 to 82.8) for morning urine, an absolute difference (95% CI) of 2.4% (-10.2 to 14.8). Specificity was 90.2% (86.5 to 93.1) versus 89.0% (85.2 to 92.1) for spot and morning urine, respectively, a difference of 1.2% (-3.7 to 1.4). A two-sample strategy increased FujiLAM sensitivity from 67.4% (51.5 to 80.9) to 74.4% (58.8 to 86.5), a difference of 7.0% (-3.0 to 16.9), while specificity decreased from 90.2% (86.5 to 93.1) to 87.3% (83.3 to 90.6), a difference of -2.9% (-4.9 to -0.8). This study indicates that FujiLAM testing performs equivalently on spot and early morning urine samples. Sensitivity could be increased with a two-sample strategy but at the risk of lower specificity. These data can inform future guidelines and clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.