Table 3. Performance of previously described scoring systems in diagnosing TB in children

Study	Design	Setting	Sample size	Gold standard	Indicator	Performance
Mathur et al, 1974 [4]	Prospective	Hospital, Jaipur India.	100	Admitted with diagnosis of TB	Kenneth Jones [9] score > 7.	73/ 100 score >7. If marasmus included, 95/100.
Van Beekihuzen, 1998 [14]	Retrospective	Hospital, Aitape PNG	301	Response to treatment	Keith Edwards [13] score > 7	Sensitivity 62%, specificity 95%
Narayan, 2003 [15]	Prospective	Hospital, Pondicherry India	101	Microbiology OR histology OR diagnostic radiology	Keith Edwards [13] score >7	Sensitivity 91%, Specificity 88%
Miglori et al, 1992 [17][1]	Prospective	Regional TB clinic, Uganda	210	Ghidey and Habte criteria [16]	AFB in gastric washing	Sensitivity 96%, Specificity 92%, PPV 68%
				AFB in gastic washings	Ghidey and Habte score [16]	Sensitivity 68%, Specificity 99%.
Schaff et al, 1995 [2]	Prospective	Hospital, Tygerberg South Africa	258	Microbiologically confirmed	WHO EPI [18]	Sensitivity and specificity not calculated as tiered classification.
Houwert et al, 1998 [21]	Prospective	Hospital, Tygerberg South Africa	627	Microbiologically confirmed	WHO EPI. [18]	Weight loss, cough and household contact PPV 63%.
Sant’Anna et al, 2004 [23]	Retrospecive	Outpatient clinic, Bahia, Brazil	164	Response to treatment	Sant’Anna et al [23] Score > 40	Sensitivity 82%
Seth & Sharma, 2002 [27]	Prospective	Hospital, Jaipur India	42	Response to therapy	Ajuja criteria for TBM [26]	Sensitivity 65%, Specificity 75%.
					Modified Ahuja criteria including family history and Mantoux	Sensitivity 83%, Specificity 63%

---

[1] In the original study, the Ghidey & Habte approach is used as the gold standard to assess the value of AFB in gastric washings. A calculated sensitivity and specificity is presented, redefining AFB in gastric washings as the gold standard.