Agarwal S, Nguyen DT, Lew JD, Teeter LD, Yamal JM, Restrepo BI, Brown EL, Dorman SE, Graviss EA. Comparing TSPOT assay results between an Elispot reader and manual counts.
Tuberculosis (Edinb) 2016;
101S:S92-S98. [PMID:
27727132 DOI:
10.1016/j.tube.2016.09.013]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The interferon gamma release assay, TSPOT.TB (TSPOT) can be read by several methodologies, including an Elispot reader or manually by technician. We compared the results from these two counting methods.
METHODS
Automated and manual TSPOT results among 2481 United States health care workers were compared. Cohen's kappa coefficient was used to determine the inter-rater agreement. Univariate and multiple logistic regression were used to investigate selected variable contributions.
RESULTS
No prognostic factors were associated with agreement of TSPOT results between counting methods. Agreement between TSPOT results were 92.3%, 89.5%, 93.0%, and 93.1% at baseline, and at follow-up at 6, 12, and 18 months, respectively. The inter-rater agreement for all test results was good (kappa = 0.71). There was a significant difference between individual technicians kappa coefficients (p < 0.001), but no significant increase in agreement over time for technicians (p = 0.394).
CONCLUSION
Commercial Elispot readers and manual counts have good agreement of TSPOT results in a low TB burden setting. Levels of agreement differed between individual technicians and automated reader from moderate to very good, indicating borderline results may be misinterpreted due to inter-rater variability. With no latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) gold standard, it cannot be determined if one TSPOT reading method is better than another.
Collapse