Table 2– Pooled meta-analysis estimates using bivariate random effects model
Studies nSensitivity# (95% CI) %I2 %p-valueSpecificity# (95% CI) %I2 %p-value
Analysis A760 (38–79)97.0<0.000193 (88–96)84.5<0.0001
 HIV positive451 (32–69)90.7<0.000194 (79–98)77.60.004
 HIV negative414 (7–24)53.30.0997 (90–99)63.10.04
Analysis B+747 (26–69)97.3<0.000193 (83–97)94.8<0.0001
 HIV positive456 (40–71)24.1<0.000195 (77–99)92.0<0.0001
 HIV negative§318 (10–29)0.00.8890 (85–93)69.30.04
Analysis Cƒ534 (14–62)98.4<0.000194 (87–98)85.5<0.0001
 HIV positive§249 (43–54)54.40.1491 (85–96)69.50.07
 HIV negative§216 (8–28)0.00.494 (86–98)70.80.06
  • I2: inconsistency. #: due to imprecision of estimates, sensitivity and specificity are rounded to the nearest whole number; : analysis excludes clinical cases (patients that were microbiologically negative, but had strong clinical/radiological suspicion for tuberculosis); +: analysis groups clinical cases with all other patients that were microbiologically negative to be reference negative; §: pooled estimates calculated with univariate random effects models (confidence intervals are expected to be narrower); ƒ: analysis groups clinical cases with patients that were microbiologically positive as reference positive.