Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phrp.2014.10.006
pISSN 2210-9099 eISSN 2233-6052
- ORIGINAL ARTICLE -
*Corresponding author.
E-mail: pmsun63@korea.kr
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright ª 2014 Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published by Elsevier Korea LLC. All rights reserved.
S4 S.-H. Park, et al
Table 1. Locationwise data of total samples tested and positivity rates for Mycobacterium tuberculosis.
Location No. of samples tested No. of positive cultures Rate of positive culture (%)
Seoul 24,000 1,855 7.7
Busan 16,595 790 4.8
Incheon 9,626 483 5.0
Gyeonggi-do 26,788 1,554 5.8
Gangwon-do 13,815 295 2.1
Chungcheongbuk-do 6,230 211 3.4
Chungcheongnam-do 14,090 567 4.0
Jeollabuk-do 6,982 291 4.2
Jeollanam-do 18,319 460 2.5
Gyeongsangbuk-do 12,899 679 5.3
Gyeongsangnam-do 16,000 723 4.5
Jeju-do 4,104 117 2.9
Osong (central center) 792 191 24.1
Total 170,240 8,216 4.8
detection rate, 4.8%). The contamination rate in the calculation, the sensitivity of the culture results
cultures was 0.6% (996/170,240) and the isolation rate improved to 62.6% and 98.6%, respectively. The
of nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) was 1.0% concordance rate between the solid and liquid culture
(1,706/170,240). The contamination rate and NTM was 92.8%. No Mycobacterium isolates were detected in
isolation rate were 0.5% and 0.8% for the solid culture, 0.4% and 6.8% of the cases in the liquid culture and
respectively, and the corresponding rates for the liquid solid culture, respectively.
culture were 2.4% and 3.4%. The contamination rate Real-time PCR identified 3360 positive cases (posi-
and the NTM isolation rate of the liquid culture were tive detection rate, 63.7%). Compared with culture re-
higher than that of the solid culture. The sensitivity and sults, real-time PCR had sensitivity and specificity of
specificity were calculated for each assay and the values 83.7% and 96.2%, respectively. The sensitivity and
were compared, except for contaminated cultures and specificity of real-time PCR were 97.2% and 72.4% for
NTM isolations. The sensitivity and specificity of smear the solid culture, and the corresponding values for the
microscopy were 56.8% and 99.6%, respectively. Based liquid culture were 93.5%, and 97.2% (Table 2). The TB
on solid culture results, the sensitivity and specificity of detection rates of real-time PCR were 26.2% (11/42) in
smear microscopy were 54.3% and 99.6%, respectively. samples detected to be positive in solid culture but
However, when liquid culture was included in the negative in liquid culture.
20,000 10
10,000 5.7 5
5.3 5.3 5.5 5.3
8,000 4.8 4.7 4.9 4
4.2 4.1 4.3 4.2
6,000 3
4,000 2
2,000 752 613 693 799 799 742 829 624 592 718 567 488 1
0 0
No. of samples tested No. of positive culture Rate of positive culture (%)
Figure 1. Monthly distribution of sample numbers tested and detections of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (culture results).
S6 S.-H. Park, et al
respiratory specimens: meta-analysis and meta-egression. PLoS 4. Chien HP, Yu MC, Wu MH, et al. Comparison of the BACTEC
One 2008 Feb;3(2):e1536. MGIT 960 with Löwenstein-Jensen medium for recovery of
2. Moon HW, Hur M, Kim JY, et al. Comparison of three molecular mycobacteria from clinical specimens. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2000
assays for the detection of rifampin resistance in Mycobacterium Sep;4(9):866e70.
tuberculosis. J Clin Lab Anal; 2014 May [Epub ahead of print]. 5. Cruciani M, Scarparo C, Malena M, et al. Meta-analysis of
3. Davis JL, Cattamanchi A, Cuevas LE, et al. Diagnostic accuracy BACTEC MGIT 960 and BACTEC 460 TB, with or without solid
of same-day microscopy versus standard microscopy for pulmo- media, for detection of mycobacteria. J Clin Microbiol 2004 May;
nary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 42(5):2321e5.
Infect Dis 2013 Feb;13(2):147e54.