Diagnostic efficiency of the disposable Monotest in detecting tuberculosis infection by setting objective-specific cut-off points for positivity

South African Medical Journal

Volumn 86, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 151-154

  Fourie, P B ^a   Swanevelder, J P ^b   Lancaster, J ^a  

^a SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL   (South Africa)

^b Department of National Health and Population Development ^*  (South Africa)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SCREENING; SOUTH AFRICA; TUBERCULIN TEST; TUBERCULOSIS;

ADULT; CHILD; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYPERSENSITIVITY, DELAYED; MALE; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUBERCULIN TEST; TUBERCULOSIS;

EID: 0029877476     PISSN: 02569574     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Chaparas SD. Commentaries: tuberculin test. Am Rev Respir Dis 1985; 132: 175-177.
2. Lunn JA, Johnson AJ, Fry JS. Comparison of multiple puncture liquid tuberculin test with Mantoux test. Lancet 1981; 1: 695-698.
3. Szumski SA. Dried or liquid tuberculin for screening. Lancet 1981; 1: 1363-1364.
4. Lunn JA. Tuberculin testing. Lancet 1981; 2: 93-94.
5. Rudd RM, Gellert AR, Yenning M. Comparison of Mantoux, Tine and 'Imotest' tuberculin tests. Lancet 1982; 2: 515-518.
6. Gutjahr P, Jung H. Detecting tuberculin sensitivity (Letter). Lancet 1982; 2: 768.
7. Herzog C, Lunn JA. Detecting tuberculin sensitivity (Letter). Lancet 1982; 2: 768.
8. Beskow R, Böttiger M, Granath B, Sievers O, Lind A. A comparative investigation of reactivity to tuberculin using a multiple-puncture technique (the Monotest) and the Mantoux test. Dev Biol Stand 1986; 58 (Part B): 659-662.
9. Robertson JS. Tuberculin tests: Comparison of Heaf and Imotest. Public Health 1983; 97: 158-162.
10. Biggs B, Connor H, Dwyer BW, Speed BR. Comparison of a multiple puncture tuberculin test, 'Imotest', and the Mantoux test in an Australian population. Tubercle 1987; 68: 285-290.
11. Toman K. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of diagnostic tests. Bull Int Union Tuberc 1981; 56: 18-28.
12. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Interpretation of diagnostic data: 5. How to do it with simple maths. Can Med Assoc J 1983; 129: 947-954.
13. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Interpretation of diagnostic data: 7. How to do it with more complex maths. Can Med Assoc J 1983; 129: 1093-1099.
14. McNeil BJ, Hanley JA. Statistical approaches to the analysis of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves. Med Decis Making 1984; 4: 137-150.
15. Bamber D. The area above the dominance graph and the area below the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) graph. J Math Psychol 1975; 12: 387-415.