IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0050173.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Proof-Of-Concept” Evaluation of an Automated Sputum Smear Microscopy System for Tuberculosis Diagnosis

Author

Listed:
  • James J Lewis
  • Violet N Chihota
  • Minty van der Meulen
  • P Bernard Fourie
  • Katherine L Fielding
  • Alison D Grant
  • Susan E Dorman
  • Gavin J Churchyard

Abstract

Background: “TBDx” is an innovative smear microscopy system that automatically loads slides onto a microscope, focuses and digitally captures images and then classifies smears as positive or negative using computerised algorithms. Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of TBDx, using culture as the gold standard, and compare this to a microscopist's diagnostic performance. Methods: This study is nested within a cross-sectional study of tuberculosis suspects from South African gold mines. All tuberculosis suspects had one sputum sample collected, which was decontaminated prior to smear microscopy, liquid culture and organism identification. All slides were auramine-stained and then read by both a research microscopist and by TBDx using fluorescence microscopes, classifying slides based on the WHO classification standard of 100 fields of view (FoV) at 400× magnification. Results: Of 981 specimens, 269 were culture positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis (27.4%). TBDx had higher sensitivity than the microscopist (75.8% versus 52.8%, respectively), but markedly lower specificity (43.5% versus 98.6%, respectively). TBDx classified 520/981 smears (53.0%) as scanty positive. Hence, a proposed hybrid software/human approach that combined TBDx examination of all smears with microscopist re-examination of TBDx scanty smears was explored by replacing the “positive” result of slides with 1–9 AFB detected on TBDx with the microscopist's original reading. Compared to using the microscopist's original results for all 981 slides, this hybrid approach resulted in equivalent specificity, a slight reduction in sensitivity from 52.8% to 49.4% (difference of 3.3%; 95% confidence interval: 0.2%, 6.5%), and a reduction in the number of slides to be read by the microscopist by 47.0%. Discussion: Compared to a research microscopist, the hybrid software/human approach had similar specificity and positive predictive value, but sensitivity requires further improvement. Automated microscopy has the potential to substantially reduce the number of slides read by microscopists.

Suggested Citation

  • James J Lewis & Violet N Chihota & Minty van der Meulen & P Bernard Fourie & Katherine L Fielding & Alison D Grant & Susan E Dorman & Gavin J Churchyard, 2012. "“Proof-Of-Concept” Evaluation of an Automated Sputum Smear Microscopy System for Tuberculosis Diagnosis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-6, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0050173
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050173
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0050173
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0050173&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0050173?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yan Nei Law & Hanbin Jian & Norman W S Lo & Margaret Ip & Mia Mei Yuk Chan & Kai Man Kam & Xiaohua Wu, 2018. "Low cost automated whole smear microscopy screening system for detection of acid fast bacilli," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0050173. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.