Computational Systems Biology Methods and Protocols.7z

(95% CI 23.0–77.0), which is higher than conventional fluores-

cence microscope with 35.7% (95% CI 12.8–64.9). Specificity was

very similar between conventional fluorescence microscope and

LED-FM [26]. However, until now, the evidence is insufficient.

Table 1
Current laboratory methods for TBM

Sensitivity Specificity Characteristic Category

Microscopy Ziehl–Neelsen

stain

10–20% [11] Special to

identify

MTB

The most practical and

universally adopted

test

1. Large
   volume CSF
   samples
   (>6 ml)


2. Fluorescence
   microscopy
   Culture of
   Mtb

36–81.8%

[12–15]

Special to

identify

MTB

Slow and insufficiently

sensitive

1. Solid culture
   medium


2. Liquid
   culture
   medium
   MODS 65% [16] Special to
   identify
   MTB

Sensitive and faster

NAAT PCR 56% for

commercial

assays [17]

98% for

commercial

assays [17]

Can detect fewer than

ten organisms

1. Commercial


2. In-house

The Xpert

MTB/RIF

assay

27–86%

[18, 19]

95% [20] 1. Entirely automated

and faster

2. Detection of
   rifampicin resistance
   IGRAs 71% for
   T-SPOT
   [21]

57% for

T-SPOT

[21]

1. A high specificity
   diagnostic tool in
   TBM


2. Not recommended
   for diagnosis of
   active TB disease
   
   
   1. QFT-IT
   
   
   
   


3. T-SPOT.TB

ADA 29.9–79%

[14, 22]

91% [22] 1. ADA values from

1 to 4 U/l helped to

exclude TBM

2. Values between
   4 and 8 U/l were
   insufficient to
   confirm or exclude
   the diagnosis of
   TBM


3. Values>8 U/l
   improved the
   diagnosis of TBM

Mtbmycobacteria,MODSthe microscopic observation drug susceptibility,NAATsnucleic acid amplification tests,
IGRAsinterferon-gamma release assays,QFT-ITQuantiFERON-TB©Gold In Tube,ADAadenosine deaminase

Progress on Diagnosis of Tuberculous Meningitis 377