4.3 Article

High sensitivity of chest radiograph reading by clinical officers in a tuberculosis prevalence survey

Journal

Publisher

INT UNION AGAINST TUBERCULOSIS LUNG DISEASE (I U A T L D)
DOI: 10.5588/ijtld.11.0004

Keywords

chest radiography; tuberculosis prevalence survey; inter-reader agreement; Kenya

Funding

  1. US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
  2. United States Agency for International Development through Johns Hopkins University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Chest radiographs (CXRs) are used in tuberculosis (TB) prevalence surveys to identify participants for bacteriological examination. Expert readers are rare in most African countries. In our survey, clinical officers scored CXRs of 19216 participants once. We assessed to what extent missed CXR abnormalities affected our TB prevalence estimate. METHODS: Two experts, a radiologist and pulmonologist, independently reviewed 1031 randomly selected CXRs, mixed with films of confirmed TB cases. CXRs with disagreement on 'any abnormality' or 'abnormality consistent with TB' were jointly reviewed during a consensus panel. We compared the final expert and clinical officer classifications with bacteriologically confirmed TB as the gold standard. RESULTS: After the panel, 199 (19%) randomly selected CXRs were considered abnormal by both expert reviewers and another 82 (8%) by one reviewer. Agreement was good among the experts (kappa 0.78, 95%CI 0.73-0.82) and moderate between the clinical officers and experts (kappa range 0.50-0.62). The sensitivity of 'any abnormality' was 95% for the clinical officers and 83% and 81% for the respective experts. The specificities were respectively 73%, 74% and 80%. TB prevalence was underestimated by 1.5-5.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptable CXR screening can be achieved with clinical officers. Reviewing a sample of CXRs by two experts allows an assessment of prevalence underestimation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available