MYCOBACTERIOLOGY AND

AEROBIC ACTINOMYCETES

crossm

Stool Culture for Diagnosis of Pulmonary

Tuberculosis in Children
Elisabetta Walters,a Anne-Marie Demers,a Marieke M. van der Zalm,a
Andrew Whitelaw,b Megan Palmer,a Corné Bosch,a Heather R. Draper,a
Robert P. Gie,a Anneke C. Hesselinga
Desmond Tutu TB Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town,
South Africaa; Division of Medical Microbiology, National Health Laboratory Service, Tygerberg Hospital, Cape
Town, South Africab

ABSTRACT Bacteriological confirmation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis is achieved in

the minority of young children with tuberculosis (TB), since specimen collection is Received 26 May 2017 Returned for
modification 20 June 2017 Accepted 5
resource intensive and respiratory secretions are mostly paucibacillary, leading to
September 2017
limited sensitivity of available diagnostic tests. Although molecular tests are increas- Accepted manuscript posted online 13
ingly available globally, mycobacterial culture remains the gold standard for diagno- September 2017
sis and determination of drug susceptibility and is more sensitive than molecular Citation Walters E, Demers A-M, van der Zalm
methods for paucibacillary TB. We evaluated stool culture as an alternative to respi- MM, Whitelaw A, Palmer M, Bosch C, Draper
HR, Gie RP, Hesseling AC. 2017. Stool culture for
ratory specimens for the diagnosis of suspected intrathoracic TB in a subgroup of diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in
188 children (median age, 14.4 months; 15.4% HIV infected) enrolled in a TB diag- children. J Clin Microbiol 55:3355–3365. https://
nostic study at two local hospitals in Cape Town, South Africa. One stool culture was doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00801-17.
Editor Karen C. Carroll, Johns Hopkins
compared to overall bacteriological confirmation by stool Xpert and by Xpert and
University School of Medicine
culture of multiple respiratory specimens. After decontamination/digestion with NALC Copyright © 2017 Walters et al. This is an
(N-acetyl-L-cysteine)-NaOH (1.25%), concentrated fluorescent smear microscopy, Xpert open-access article distributed under the terms
MTB/RIF, and liquid culture were completed for all specimens. Culture contamination of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International license.
of stool specimens was high at 41.5%. Seven of 90 (7.8%) children initiating TB treat-
Address correspondence to Elisabetta Walters,
ment were stool culture positive for M. tuberculosis. Excluding contaminated cul- ewal@sun.ac.za.
tures, the sensitivity of stool culture versus confirmed TB was 6/25 (24.0%; 95% con-
fidence interval [CI] ⫽ 9.4 to 45.1%). In addition, stool culture detected TB in 1/93
(1.1%) children with “unconfirmed TB.” Testing the same stool by Xpert increased
sensitivity to 33.3% (95% CI ⫽ 18.0 to 51.8%). In conclusion, stool culture had low
sensitivity for M. tuberculosis detection in children with intrathoracic TB. Reducing
culture contamination through improved laboratory protocols may enable more reli-
able estimates of its diagnostic utility.
KEYWORDS childhood tuberculosis, stool culture, diagnosis

A lthough rapid molecular methods are increasingly being adopted globally for the
diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) (1), culture-based methods remain the reference
(gold) standard for the diagnosis of TB and for drug susceptibility testing (DST) (1). In
paucibacillary forms of TB, including most forms of TB in children and sputum-scarce or
smear-negative adults with HIV-associated pulmonary TB (PTB), detection by culture is
considerably superior to molecular assays. For example, the Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert;
Cepheid, Sunnydale, CA) has 62 to 66% sensitivity compared to culture for the diag-
nosis of pediatric PTB (2), and 68% for smear-negative PTB in adults (3). However, even
culture in these patient groups confirms ⬍50% of cases (4–6), partly due to low
bacterial burden and the difficulty in obtaining high-quality sputum specimens (6, 7).
TB in children, although under-reported, contributes at least 10% of the disease
burden globally (1), and up to 21% (8) of the total TB case load in high-burden TB
settings. Children generally have good TB treatment outcomes given timely diagnosis
and treatment; however, immunological immaturity, especially in young and HIV-

December 2017 Volume 55 Issue 12 Journal of Clinical Microbiology jcm.asm.org 3355

Walters et al. Journal of Clinical Microbiology

FIG 1 STARD cohort flow diagram, illustrating stool culture results by consensus case definition (27). EPTB,
extrapulmonary tuberculosis. *, One child was positive on stool culture only; all respiratory cultures and Xpert and
stool Xpert were negative.

infected children, favors rapid progression of TB disease if the diagnosis is missed or

delayed (9, 10).
In addition to the importance of confirming a diagnosis, especially in children from
high-risk groups, the increasing incidence of drug-resistant TB globally (1) calls for
greater efforts to pursue bacteriological confirmation in all patients at risk of drug
resistance, including children, in order to treat all patients effectively and to prevent the
emergence and transmission of resistant M. tuberculosis strains (11, 12).
Alternative methods to collect respiratory specimens, such as sputum induction,
gastric aspiration, and bronchoalveolar lavage from young children, are resource
intensive and relatively invasive. When collected, these specimens typically have a low
mycobacterial burden, resulting in modest detection by current available tests, includ-
ing mycobacterial culture and molecular assays (2, 5, 13). Collecting multiple specimens
improves detection yield (14–16) but is costly and typically has to occur over consec-
utive days, which limits its feasibility.
Stool is easily collected from children and can be used for the detection of M.
tuberculosis present in swallowed sputum, using both culture and molecular methods
(17–26). We have recently shown that stool Xpert detects approximately one in four
children with radiologically severe PTB (25). Although Xpert gives rapid results, includ-
ing rifampin resistance, current diagnostic algorithms still require a cultured isolate for
further DST to isoniazid and other drugs. We evaluated stool culture as a noninvasive
strategy for the diagnosis of intrathoracic (pulmonary) TB in a subset of children with
suspected PTB, whose stool Xpert results were reported previously (25).

RESULTS
Cohort recruitment and characteristics are summarized in Fig. 1 and Table 1. Overall,
188 children were included in the study. Thirty-seven (19.7%) children were classified as
“confirmed TB” (excluding stool culture results as the index test), 93 (49.5%) were
classified as “unconfirmed TB,” and 58 (30.9%) were classified as “unlikely TB” according
to international consensus clinical case definitions for intrathoracic TB in children (27).
Overall, 90 (47.9%) children were treated for TB by the clinical care team. Twenty-six of
90 (28.9%) children who initiated antituberculosis therapy had stool specimens col-
lected after treatment initiation (median, 2 days; interquartile range, 1 to 4 days).

December 2017 Volume 55 Issue 12 jcm.asm.org 3356

Stool Culture for Tuberculosis Diagnosis in Children Journal of Clinical Microbiology

TABLE 1 Cohort characteristics overall and grouped by international consensus diagnostic category (27) in children presenting with
suspected tuberculosis (n ⫽ 188)
Diagnosisa
Children with Children with Children with
Characteristic All children confirmed TBb unconfirmed TB unlikely TB
Total 188 (100) 37 (19.7) 93 (49.5) 58 (30.9)

Age (mo) 14.4 17.5 15.5 12.5

Median (IQR) 7.2–25.6 8.9–28.4 9.1–26.1 5.6–20.2

Male 95 (50.0) 15 (40.5) 48 (51.6) 32 (55.2)

HIV infected 29 (15.4) 2 (5.4) 19 (20.4) 8 (13.8)
On ART at presentation 9 (31.0) 0 (0) 8 (42.1) 1 (12.5)

WAZ⬍-2 97 (51.6) 19 (51.4) 59 (63.4) 19 (32.8)

With evidence of BCG immunization 182 (96.8) 32 (86.5) 93 (100) 57 (98.3)
ⱖ1 well-defined TB symptom(s)c 149 (79.3) 33 (89.2) 81 (87.1) 35 (60.3)

TST positive 48 (29.4) 23 (74.2) 21 (25.6) 4 (8.0)

n 163 31 82 50

Exposure to identified TB source case 105 (55.9) 25 (67.6) 71 (76.3) 9 (15.5)

CXR suggestive of TB 58 (31.9) 26 (74.3) 28 (30.1) 4 (7.4)

n 182 35 93 54

Treated for TB 90 (47.9) 37 (100) 38 (40.9) 15 (25.9)

aValues are expressed as number (%) unless otherwise noted in column 1. IQR, interquartile range; ART, antiretroviral therapy; WAZ, weight-for-age Z-score according
to UK growth charts 1990 (44); BCG, bacillus Calmette-Guérin; TST, tuberculin skin test; CXR, chest radiograph.
bThis value includes all children with positive Xpert or culture of M. tuberculosis from respiratory specimens or a positive Xpert result for stool. Two children were

confirmed only on stool Xpert. One child whose only M. tuberculosis-positive test was stool culture is classified as “unconfirmed TB,” since stool culture was the index
test.
cAs reported previously (45).

Of the 37 children with bacteriologically confirmed TB, 28 were confirmed on

respiratory specimen culture and 9 were confirmed by Xpert only (7 on respiratory
specimens and two on stool; all 9 were culture negative). Stool culture was positive in
6/37 (16.2%) children with “confirmed TB,” in 1/93 (1.1%) children with “unconfirmed
TB” and in none of the children with “unlikely TB.”
In order to present a fair comparison between stool and respiratory specimens, we
also compared stool culture to culture of respiratory specimens in children who had
stool and respiratory specimens collected on the same day (n ⫽ 153). Stool culture
sensitivity was 33.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] ⫽ 11.8 to 61.6%), with other
measures of diagnostic accuracy being similar to the comparison between stool and 2
gastric aspirate (GA) or 2 sputum (SPT) specimens. The diagnostic accuracy analyses for
stool culture are shown in Table 2 and detailed microbiology of stool specimens in
Table 3.
If contaminated stool cultures are excluded, there was no difference in culture
positivity for stool specimens collected before (4/35; 11.4%) or after (3/18; 16.7%)
initiation of TB treatment (P ⫽ 0.667). Of the children with positive respiratory cultures
(n ⫽ 28), 21 (75%) had stool collected within 1 day of the first culture-positive
respiratory specimen: 12/21 (57.1%) on the same day or 1 day before the respiratory
specimen and 9/21 (42.9%) 1 day after the respiratory specimen. Stool cultures were
positive in 6 of these 21 (28.6%) children; 10/21 (47.6%) stool cultures were negative,
and 5/21 (23.8%) were contaminated. In comparison, none of the 7 stools collected ⬎1
day after the first culture-positive respiratory specimen were culture positive.
The 7 isolates from positive stool cultures were all drug susceptible. Drug-resistant
TB was detected from respiratory specimens in 4/37 (10.8%) children with confirmed
TB: 2 were at least isoniazid monoresistant, and 2 were multidrug resistant (MDR), with
susceptibility to ofloxacin and amikacin confirmed on phenotypic DST. Stool culture
was negative in all 4, despite stool being collected before treatment in all cases.

December 2017 Volume 55 Issue 12 jcm.asm.org 3357

Walters et al. Journal of Clinical Microbiology

TABLE 2 Diagnostic accuracy of stool culture compared to defined reference standardsa

Comparison
SC vs culture or SC vs clinical decision SC vs culture of SC vs culture of
Parameter Xpertb to treatc GA/SPTd respiratory specimense
Stool culture result (no. of samples [⫹/–/total])
Stool culture (⫹) 6/1/7 7/0/7 5/2/7 5/1/6
Stool culture (–) 15/88/103 46/57/103 10/91/101 10/73/83
Totals 21/89/110 53/57/110 15/93/108 15/74/89

% sensitivity or specificity (95% CI)

Sensitivity 28.6 (11.3, 52.2) 13.2 (5.5, 25.3) 33.3 (11.8, 61.6) 33.3 (11.8, 61.6)
Specificity 98.9 (93.9, 100.0) 100.0 (93.7, 100.0) 97.8 (92.4, 99.7) 98.6 (92.7, 100.0)

PPV or NPV (95% CI)

PPV 85.7 (42.1, 99.6) 100.0 (59.0, 100.0) 71.4 (29.0, 96.3) 83.3 (35.9, 99.6)
NPV 85.4 (77.1, 91.6) 55.3 (45.2, 65.1) 90.1 (82.5, 95.1) 88.0 (79.0–94.1)
aGA, gastric aspirate; SPT, sputum; IS, induced sputum; (⫹), positive; (–), negative; CI, confidence interval; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.
bThat is, stool culture compared to culture or Xpert of up to 2 GA/SPT and 2 IS specimens; n ⫽ 110 (78 children with contaminated stool culture were excluded).
cThat is, stool culture compared to clinical decision to treat; n ⫽ 110 (78 children with contaminated stool culture were excluded).

dThat is, stool culture compared to culture of 2 GA/SPT specimens; n ⫽ 108 (78 children with contaminated stool culture and 2 with contaminated GA cultures were

excluded).
eThat is, stool culture compared to culture of respiratory specimens collected on the same day; n ⫽ 89 (64 children with contaminated stool culture and 2 with

contaminated respiratory cultures were excluded).

Two of the seven (28.6%) culture-positive and 3/103 (2.9%) culture-negative stool
specimens were smear positive (Table 3). The three culture-negative, smear-positive
stool specimens were all collected before starting TB treatment, and all were processed
between 12 and 72 h after collection. All smear-positive stool samples originated from
children who had confirmed TB: respiratory specimens from these children were all
smear, Xpert, and culture positive. No nontuberculous mycobacteria were isolated from
stool.
Culture was contaminated in 78/188 (41.5%) stool versus 31/419 (7.4%) GA, 24/425
(5.7%) induced sputum (IS), and 0/6 (0.0%) SPT specimens. Although not subjected to
microbiological identification, contaminating organisms were compatible with fungal
and bacterial overgrowth.

TABLE 3 Stool microbiology results grouped by culture, Xpert MTB/RIF, and smear
resultsa
TTP Xpert Smear No. of stool
Culture (days) Xpert semiquantitative Smear grade specimensb (n ⴝ 188)
Pos MTB 9 Det VL Pos 1⫹ 1
16 Det L Neg 1
25 Det L Neg 1
26 Det L Neg 1
19 Neg Neg 1
22 Neg Neg 1
12 E/I/NR Pos 1⫹ 1
Neg Det M Pos 3⫹ 1
Det VL Pos 2⫹ 1
Det L Pos Scanty 1
Det VL Neg 1
Det VL Neg 1
Det L Neg 1
Neg Neg 85
E/I/NR Neg 12
Contaminated Det VL Neg 1
Neg Neg 69
E/I/NR Neg 8
aTTP, time to positivity; Pos, positive; Det, M. tuberculosis detected; VL, very low; L, low; Neg, negative; E/I/NR,
error, invalid, or no result; M, medium.
bOne stool specimen per participant (n ⫽ 188 participants).

December 2017 Volume 55 Issue 12 jcm.asm.org 3358

Stool Culture for Tuberculosis Diagnosis in Children Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Incremental value of Xpert on stool for M. tuberculosis detection. Of the seven

stool specimens with positive cultures, the Xpert result on the same specimens was
positive in four (57.1%). However, the incremental value of testing all stool specimens
with Xpert as well was 100%, since Xpert detected M. tuberculosis in an additional seven
stool specimens, six of which were stool culture negative and one had a contaminated
culture (Table 3). The sensitivity/specificity of combined stool culture and Xpert versus
confirmed TB based on respiratory specimens alone was 33.3% (95% CI ⫽ 18.0 to
51.8%)/98.0% (95% CI ⫽ 94.2 to 99.6%), respectively, if including participants with
either a valid stool Xpert or stool culture result (n ⫽ 180). Eight children who had both
stool Xpert invalid and stool culture contaminated were excluded from this calculation.
The reduced specificity is due to three children who were positive on stool Xpert or
stool culture alone, but negative on all respiratory specimens. None of the children with
MDR-TB were stool Xpert positive.
Spectrum of TB disease in children with positive stool culture. Six of the seven
children with positive stool cultures showed severe disease on chest radiographs (CXR)
(28), including four with cavities. One child had a normal CXR, and all cultures except
stool were negative. The child was started on antituberculosis therapy clinically before
stool culture results were available, based on suggestive symptoms, a positive tuber-
culin skin test (TST), and significant TB exposure history (mother with TB), and re-
sponded well to TB treatment. None of the seven had extrathoracic TB.
Stool culture in abdominal TB. Of seven children with a clinical/sonographic
diagnosis of abdominal TB, four had negative and three had contaminated stool
cultures. For one child, M. tuberculosis was detected by Xpert in a stool sample.

DISCUSSION
The ability to culture M. tuberculosis from an appropriate clinical specimen allows for
characterization of the mycobacterial isolate, including genotyping and DST, and
remains a critical part of clinical management of TB in children and adults. We have
already shown that in children with severe intrathoracic TB, stool Xpert can provide a
rapid confirmation in a substantial proportion of children and can directly inform
clinical care (25). Since culture is more sensitive than Xpert, especially in pauciba-
cillary TB (2, 29), we evaluated the diagnostic utility of stool culture in a subgroup
of children whose stool Xpert results we had previously reported on. However, stool
culture was discontinued early due to the high contamination rate relative to its
poor diagnostic yield. Stool culture did not confirm any of the children with
drug-resistant TB and was positive only in 4% of children overall, mostly children
with severe manifestations of PTB.
We found that adding Xpert testing of the same stool specimens increased M.
tuberculosis detection by 100%, since seven stool specimens were Xpert positive but
culture negative or contaminated, thereby adding seven additional confirmed diagno-
ses to the seven confirmed by stool culture. Although Xpert testing had better
sensitivity than culture for stool, Xpert only allows partial DST: combining the two
testing methods could improve the sensitivity of stool testing, while simultaneously
enabling at least a portion of specimens to undergo full DST if clinically relevant. In our
cohort, none of the children with MDR-TB were detected using either stool culture or
stool Xpert. This may be due to chance since the numbers were small. Studies enrolling
children with suspected drug-resistant TB would be best placed to opportunistically
evaluate the diagnostic utility of stool culture and Xpert in this patient population.
The sensitivity of stool culture compared to mycobacteriological confirmation using
respiratory specimens was 24%, excluding contaminated cultures. If these are included
as “not positive,” the sensitivity was even lower at 16.2%. This is because some of
children excluded based on contaminated stool culture in the first calculation had
confirmed TB, so the relative proportion of stool culture-positive children was higher
(data not shown). Allowing stool to be collected after TB treatment initiation (up to 7
days) is a limitation of this study and may have contributed to lower bacillary numbers
in stool. In contrast, according to protocol entry criteria, respiratory specimens were

December 2017 Volume 55 Issue 12 jcm.asm.org 3359

Walters et al. Journal of Clinical Microbiology

mostly collected pretreatment. Although our data suggest that pretreatment collection
of stool was not associated with a higher proportion of positive stool cultures, this
analysis was not adequately powered. Notably, all culture-positive stools came from
children whose stool was collected no more than 1 day after the first culture-positive
respiratory specimen. This is probably a function of a correlation between stool and
sputum mycobacterial loads. Collection of stool a few days after respiratory specimens
may result in lower detection from stool due to a variety of factors, such as treatment
with antibiotics and antituberculosis drugs and reduced sputum production leading to
less sputum being swallowed.
An additional limitation of our study, which may have negatively biased the stool
culture results, is that a single stool specimen was compared to multiple respiratory
specimens. We could not find any published studies evaluating the incremental diag-
nostic yield of additional stool specimens, but it is plausible that, similarly to respiratory
specimens, increasing the number of specimens collected could have an additive effect.
Although mindful of these limitations, we opted for a pragmatic approach to stool
collection, since we were evaluating the potential of stool testing as a feasible strategy
for resource-limited settings. Applying excessively strict conditions for method and
timing of collection would severely limit feasibility and is less likely to be applicable on
the field. Although the cost of a second culture may be prohibitive in many settings, the
value of a second stool culture should be studied and considered for settings where
this may be an option.
The sensitivity of stool culture in our study, although low, is higher than that
reported in the other pediatric studies on stool culture for TB diagnosis by Donald and
Oberhelman, where the sensitivity was 15 to 20% compared to culture of two gastric
aspirates (20, 21, 30). Our study applied relatively narrow entry criteria, which resulted
in almost 50% of the cohort initiating TB treatment, and in a considerable proportion
having bacteriologically confirmed TB (42%). In absolute numbers, our study had
almost double the number of bacteriologically confirmed cases compared to the other
three studies, likely indicating a more severe spectrum of TB disease in our hospital-
based cohort. The high prevalence of disease resulted in a high positive predictive
value of stool culture (85%), which may not be generalizable to all settings and will be
highly dependent on the selection criteria for investigation and on the expected
prevalence and severity of TB disease.
It is also difficult to compare our results to the other pediatric studies, as different
protocols for stool preparation and different culture methods were used. Oberhelman
et al. used a small initial stool mass (0.1 g) diluted in 6 ml of phosphate-buffered saline
(PBS) (20, 30), whereas Donald et al. combined two stool specimens (final mass not
specified) (21) and followed the method published by Allen (31). All three studies used
1% final concentration sodium hydroxide (NaOH) for decontamination, followed by
centrifugation. For culture, Donald et al. used the Bactec radiometric culture, while
Oberhelman et al. used both Lowenstein-Jensen and microscopic observation drug
susceptibility methods. We used a Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT; Becton
Dickinson, Sparks, MD) culture with PANTA, which is more sensitive than solid culture
(32) and is the method used by the South African National Health Laboratory Service.
However, despite the addition of antibiotics, MGIT culture is more prone to contami-
nation by commensal microorganisms (32). The abundant microflora which constitutes
stool grows rapidly in culture and prevents the identification of the slower-growing M.
tuberculosis bacilli. The other published pediatric stool culture studies do not report on
contamination rates, but studies in adults using MGIT report 14 to 38% contaminated
cultures (23, 33, 34). Earlier reports using nonselective culture media on stool samples
resulted in excessive contamination, for the detection of both M. tuberculosis (35) and
Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) (36, 37), leading to early discontinuation of those
protocols. More recently, liquid culture has become widely available and is known to
result in higher contamination for sputum and nonsputum samples than solid culture
media (32).
Culture contamination was the main reason for discontinuing stool culture in our

December 2017 Volume 55 Issue 12 jcm.asm.org 3360

Stool Culture for Tuberculosis Diagnosis in Children Journal of Clinical Microbiology

study. Despite instructing caregivers to keep stool specimens refrigerated and allowing
for a maximum 72 h from collection to processing, we did not collect data on the site
of collection (home versus hospital): it is possible that ideal conditions were not
maintained for stool specimens collected at home, and that this contributed to high
contamination rates. Various techniques to reduce stool culture contamination in the
laboratory have been evaluated. Allen tested different decontaminating agents and
concluded that NaOH was superior to sulfuric acid and alkali precipitation for recovery
of M. tuberculosis and decontamination (31). In a separate similar study, NaOH also
resulted in higher yield and comparable contamination rates compared to Portaels
solution and benzalkonium chloride-1-hexadecylpyridinium chloride (35). El Khechine
et al. replaced NaOH decontamination with 0.25% chlorhexidine in their laboratory
handling of stool samples (19, 38), citing unpublished data of improved recovery versus
contamination compared to NaOH (19). Chlorhexidine is inactive against mycobacteria
and may increase the recovery of M. tuberculosis (39, 40). The sensitivity of stool culture
in the study by El Khechine is the highest reported for the diagnosis of PTB at 54% (19).
Allen also tried to reduce stool culture contamination by diluting samples after the
1% NaOH digestion/decontamination procedure, before inoculation into culture me-
dium (31). Dilutions of 1:10 substantially reduced contamination without affecting M.
tuberculosis yield.
Other stool decontamination methods have been evaluated for the recovery of
MAC, including the use of oxalic acid (which resulted in similar contamination rates but
improved MAC detection) (36) and testing different concentrations of and time expo-
sure to NaOH (37). Although certain protocols could achieve improved detection, the
effect on contamination rates was more variable. Importantly, the pathophysiology of
MAC disease in AIDS patients, where disease may be primarily abdominal and rapidly
disseminates, may explain the higher sensitivity of stool culture for MAC compared to
M. tuberculosis in patients with suspected PTB.
Pediatric stool culture studies for M. tuberculosis detection have not evaluated
higher NaOH concentrations and longer exposure times for sample decontamination,
nor the effect of sample dilution. However, it is plausible that these modifications may
disproportionately affect mycobacterial recovery compared to reduction of bacterial
and fungal overgrowth on the already paucibacillary specimens typically collected from
children with PTB.
Conclusions. Although stool can easily be collected by caregivers and untrained
health care workers, stool sample preparation and processing for culture are relatively
complex and laboratory protocols have yet to be optimized. Given the available
evidence, stool culture for TB diagnosis cannot currently be recommended to replace
culture and Xpert of respiratory samples for the diagnosis of intrathoracic TB in
children. Culture remains an expensive technique, and the high percentage of non-
evaluable results from contamination using standard protocols paired with limited
diagnostic sensitivity does not currently justify its routine use.
More work is needed before stool culture can be promoted as a feasible diagnostic
strategy for resource-limited settings. Given the limited options for confirming TB in
children from high-burden settings, stool culture may still have a role in TB diagnosis
as an adjunctive diagnostic measure or in clinical situations where confirmation of TB
disease and DST results is critical, but laboratory research should be prioritized over
clinical evaluations. Specifically, promising laboratory protocols that have shown better
sensitivity and low contamination rates, such as those using chlorhexidine, should be
systematically evaluated and compared to current protocols. Optimized laboratory
protocols could then be applied to targeted high-risk pediatric populations such as
children at risk of MDR-TB, those with HIV infection and those with severe forms of
intrathoracic TB, where diagnosis is most critical. This approach would ultimately inform
whether stool culture has a place in resource-limited settings with laboratory capacity
but inadequate resources for sputum collection in children.

December 2017 Volume 55 Issue 12 jcm.asm.org 3361

Walters et al. Journal of Clinical Microbiology

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cohort eligibility, enrollment, and investigation have been previously described (25). In brief,
following caregiver written consent, children ⬍13 years of age who presented to two referral hospitals
in Cape Town, South Africa, with suspected intrathoracic TB (PTB inclusive of pleural effusion and hilar
adenopathy) were consecutively enrolled from April 2012 to June 2014. Eligibility was based on ⱖ1 of
the following symptoms: (i) cough lasting ⱖ2 weeks, (ii) unexplained fever for ⱖ1 week, or (iii) poor
growth or weight loss over the preceding 3 months. We also included children with any cough duration,
if ⱖ1 of the following characteristics were present: (i) exposure to an identified TB source case in the
preceding 12 months, (ii) positive TST if previously negative or unknown, or (iii) a CXR suggestive of TB
as assessed by the study clinician. Infants ⬍3 months of age with pneumonia unresponsive to appro-
priate antimicrobials or with unexplained and unresponsive sepsis syndrome were also eligible. We
excluded children who had received ⬎1 dose of antituberculosis therapy (excluding isoniazid preventive
therapy) before respiratory specimen collection, who had an established alternative diagnosis at screen-
ing, or who were unable to commit to follow up. Children with both extrapulmonary and intrathoracic
manifestations of TB were eligible.
Investigations included TST (Mantoux, two tuberculin units of PPD RT-23; Statens Serum Institute,
Copenhagen, Denmark), HIV testing, and CXR, evaluated by two independent experts. TST results were read
48 to 72 h after placement and were considered positive if the wheal measured ⱖ10 mm if HIV negative and
Mycobacterium bovis bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccinated, ⱖ5 mm if HIV positive, or not BCG vacci-
nated. Evidence of BCG vaccination was determined by written record in the immunization card or evidence
of BCG scar in the right deltoid area. HIV testing was by HIV DNA PCR in children ⬍18 months of age, and
by HIV antibody testing (using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA]) if ⱖ18 months.
Treatment decisions were made by the attending clinicians based on clinical, epidemiological, and
bacteriological findings, including the results of all respiratory and stool specimens collected by the study
team. For research purposes, participants were classified using the revised clinical case definitions of
intrathoracic TB in children (27), into the categories “confirmed TB” (M. tuberculosis confirmed by culture
or Xpert on at least one respiratory specimen or on stool Xpert), “unconfirmed TB” (no bacteriological
confirmation of M. tuberculosis and a minimum two of well-defined TB symptoms; proof of TB infection;
TB exposure in the past 12 months; CXR suggestive of TB; and favorable response to anti-tuberculosis
treatment at 2 months), and “unlikely TB” (no bacteriological confirmation of M. tuberculosis and the
criteria for “unconfirmed TB” not met). The classification was determined retrospectively at the 2-month
follow-up, when culture results from enrollment were available and treatment response was assessed.
Disease severity was determined using a pragmatic modification of a published classification (28),
wherein radiologically severe TB cases demonstrated any of the following: (i) complications from typical
radiological manifestations of TB (e.g., cavities, expansile pneumonia, and nodal airway obstruction), (ii)
bilateral parenchymal involvement, (iii) overall parenchymal involvement more extensive than the total
area of the right upper lobe, or (iv) disseminated (miliary) TB. For CXR not typical of TB, criteria 2 and 3
were used to define severe disease.
Specimen collection, transport, and laboratory methods. At enrollment, on each of two consec-
utive days, we collected one specimen of two different types (four specimens in all). Study protocol
required two early morning GA samples from young children (⬍5 years of age) unable to expectorate or
two fasting SPT in older children, as well as two IS samples with or without nasopharyngeal suctioning.
Standard procedures were followed (25). Some children had additional respiratory specimens collected
as clinically relevant. One stool specimen per child was collected within 7 days of enrollment. Caregivers
were given verbal and written instructions on how to collect stool. For young children in diapers, a urine
bag placed onto the perineum prevented urine from mixing with stool. Formed stool was collected
directly from the diaper using a scoop attached to the lid of the stool collection receptacle. For liquid
stool, the diaper was fitted inside out or plastic waterproof briefs were fitted under the child’s diaper in
direct contact with the skin: as soon as stool was passed, the liquid stool was poured or scooped into the
stool receptacle. Children who were toilet trained were each given a clean potty into which to pass stool,
or they could pass stool onto a sheet of plastic cling film fitted onto a conventional toilet seat. Stool
receptacles were premarked to indicate the amount of stool needed (six scoops, equivalent to 2 to 3 g).
Specimens collected in hospital were kept refrigerated and transported to the laboratory in a cool
box within 4 h of collection. For stool collected at home after discharge from hospital, caregivers were
instructed to keep the specimens in a fridge. The study team was notified by phone when the stool
sample was ready, and each specimen was collected from the participant’s home. Stool specimens were
stored refrigerated for maximum 72 h from collection to processing.
Respiratory specimens were processed at the National Health Laboratory Service Microbiology
Laboratory at Tygerberg Hospital. For digestion/decontamination, N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NALC)-NaOH was
used (final NaOH concentration, 1.25%), before concentrated fluorescent Auramine-O smear microscopy
(41), Xpert MTB/RIF, and liquid MGIT culture.
Stool specimens were homogenized with 20 ml of PBS (pH 6.8) by vortexing: 5 ml of the stool-PBS
mixture was then processed with NALC-NaOH (1.25%). Similarly to respiratory specimens, after concen-
tration at 3,000 ⫻ g for 20 min, the pellet was resuspended in 2 ml of PBS: a drop was used for fluorescent
Auramine-O smear microscopy (41), 0.5 ml was used for MGIT culture (32), and 1.0 ml was mixed with
2.0 ml of Xpert sample reagent and loaded into the GeneXpert instrument (software v4.4a) according to
manufacturer’s instructions.
Smears were graded according to the WHO/International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung
Disease system (42). Cultures were incubated for up to 42 days. If no growth was observed, cultures
were declared negative. For positive cultures, the time to positivity in days was noted, and a

December 2017 Volume 55 Issue 12 jcm.asm.org 3362

Stool Culture for Tuberculosis Diagnosis in Children Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN) stain was performed on the culture. If the culture was ZN positive, mycobacterial
identification and drug susceptibility for isoniazid and rifampin were completed using MTBDRPlus
(Hain Life Science, Nehren, Germany). Rifampin-resistant strains underwent phenotypic DST for
ofloxacin and amikacin using the agar proportion method. If growth of bacteria/fungi was observed
on blood agar plates and/or non-acid-fast bacteria were seen on the ZN smear, the MGIT culture was
considered contaminated. Contaminated cultures from respiratory specimens were redecontami-
nated and reincubated once. Contaminated stool cultures were not further decontaminated as local
laboratory experience was that redecontamination was rarely successful. Contaminating organisms
were not identified. The laboratory technician who handled the stool cultures was not blind to other
microbiology results.
Statistical analysis. The primary objective was to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and
predictive values of the stool culture for the diagnosis of intrathoracic TB in children, compared to
(i) confirmed TB, as defined above, and (ii) a clinical decision to treat. In secondary analyses, we
compared the diagnostic utility of stool culture to the culture of (i) two GA or two SPT specimens,
the reference standard used in similar published studies, and (ii) respiratory specimens collected on
the same day as stool. We also evaluated the incremental diagnostic value of Xpert testing of the
same stool specimen, and the combined sensitivity of stool Xpert and culture versus confirmed TB
from respiratory specimens.
All analyses of diagnostic accuracy were conducted per patient (not per specimen). Children were
included in analysis if they had a minimum of one stool and one respiratory specimen collected and if
stool was collected within 7 days of the respiratory specimens. Contaminated cultures and invalid/error
Xpert results were considered nonevaluable and were not repeated. For diagnostic accuracy calculations,
participants were excluded if stool culture was contaminated or if all the results of the respiratory
specimens were nonevaluable.
Clinical and demographic characteristics were summarized by clinical case definitions using means
and standard deviations if normally distributed and with medians and interquartile ranges if not normally
distributed. The chi-squared test and Fisher exact test were used for comparisons between proportions.
STARD guidelines were followed for reporting and analyses (43). Analyses were generated using Stata
14.0 special edition software (Stata statistical software, release 14; StataCorp LP, College Station, TX).
This study was approved by the Stellenbosch University Health Research Ethics Committee (reference
N11/09/282) and by local health authorities.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study forms part of the body of work toward a Ph.D. degree for E.W.: the Ph.D.
work from which this study emanated was funded by the Medical Research Council of
South Africa under MRC Clinician Researcher Programme and by the South African
National Research Foundation (Thuthuka Program Funding for Doctoral Students).
This study was also supported by funding from the Faculty of Medicine and Health
Sciences at Stellenbosch University, the Harry Crossley Foundation, the South African
Medical Research Council (Self-Initiated Research funding program), and the Tubercu-
losis Trials Consortium (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and interpretation, or
in the decision to submit this work for publication. The views and opinions expressed
are not those of the funders but of the authors of the manuscript.
The study team acknowledges the study participants and their families and the staff
at the participating health facilities and the support staff at the Desmond Tutu TB
Centre for their dedication and assistance. We also acknowledge Sven O. Friedrich and
Kim Hoek for technical assistance.

REFERENCES
1. World Health Organization. 2016. Global tuberculosis report, 2016. 5. Theron G, Peter J, Meldau R, Khalfey H, Gina P, Matinyena B, Lenders
World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. L, Calligaro G, Allwood B, Symons G, Govender U, Setshedi M, Dheda
2. Detjen AK, DiNardo AR, Leyden J, Steingart KR, Menzies D, Schiller I, K. 2013. Accuracy and impact of Xpert MTB/RIF for the diagnosis of
Dendukuri N, Mandalakas AM. 2015. Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diag- smear-negative or sputum-scarce tuberculosis using bronchoalveolar
nosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in children: a systematic review and lavage fluid. Thorax 68:1043–1051. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl
meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med 3:451– 461. https://doi.org/10.1016/ -2013-203485.
S2213-2600(15)00095-8. 6. Peter JG, Theron G, Singh N, Singh A, Dheda K. 2014. Sputum induction
3. Steingart KR, Schiller I, Horne DJ, Pai M, Boehme CC, Dendukuri N. 2014. to aid diagnosis of smear-negative or sputum-scarce tuberculosis in
Xpert(R) MTB/RIF assay for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resis- adults in HIV-endemic settings. Eur Respir J 43:185–194. https://doi.org/
tance in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014:CD009593. https://doi 10.1183/09031936.00198012.
.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009593.pub3. 7. Detjen AK, Walters E. 2016. Editorial commentary: improving children’s
4. DiNardo AR, Detjen A, Ustero P, Ngo K, Bacha J, Mandalakas AM. 2016. access to new tuberculosis diagnostic tools starts with the collection of
Culture is an imperfect and heterogeneous reference standard in pedi- appropriate specimens. Clin Infect Dis 62:1169 –1171. https://doi.org/10
atric tuberculosis. Tuberculosis (Edinb) 101S:S105–S108. https://doi.org/ .1093/cid/ciw042.
10.1016/j.tube.2016.09.021. 8. Dodd PJ, Gardiner E, Coghlan R, Seddon JA. 2014. Burden of childhood

December 2017 Volume 55 Issue 12 jcm.asm.org 3363

Walters et al. Journal of Clinical Microbiology

tuberculosis in 22 high-burden countries: a mathematical modelling Zar HJ. 2013. Xpert MTB/RIF testing of stool samples for the diagnosis of
study. Lancet Glob Health 2:e453– e459. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214 pulmonary tuberculosis in children. Clin Infect Dis 57:e18 – e21. https://
-109X(14)70245-1. doi.org/10.1093/cid/cit230.
9. Marais BJ, Gie RP, Schaaf HS, Hesseling AC, Obihara CC, Starke JJ, Enarson 25. Walters E, van der Zalm MM, Palmer M, Bosch C, Demers AM, Draper H,
DA, Donald PR, Beyers N. 2004. The natural history of childhood intra- Goussard P, Schaaf HS, Friedrich SO, Whitelaw A, Warren R, Gie RP,
thoracic tuberculosis: a critical review of literature from the pre- Hesseling AC. 2017. Xpert MTB/RIF on stool is useful for the rapid
chemotherapy era. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 8:392– 402. diagnosis of tuberculosis in young children with severe pulmonary
10. Bates M, Shibemba A, Mudenda V, Chimoga C, Tembo J, Kabwe M, disease. Pediatr Infect Dis J 36:837– 843. https://doi.org/10.1097/INF
Chilufya M, Hoelscher M, Maeurer M, Sinyangwe S, Mwaba P, Kapata N, .0000000000001563.
Zumla A. 2016. Burden of respiratory tract infections at post mortem in 26. Wolf H, Mendez M, Gilman RH, Sheen P, Soto G, Velarde AK, Zimic M,
Zambian children. BMC Med 14:99. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016 Escombe AR, Montenegro S, Oberhelman RA, Evans CA. 2008. Diagnosis
-0645-z. of pediatric pulmonary tuberculosis by stool PCR. Am J Trop Med Hyg
11. Muller B, Chihota VN, Pillay M, Klopper M, Streicher EM, Coetzee G, 79:893– 898.
Trollip A, Hayes C, Bosman ME, Gey van Pittius NC, Victor TC, Gagneux 27. Graham SM, Cuevas LE, Jean-Philippe P, Browning R, Casenghi M, Detjen
S, van Helden PD, Warren RM. 2013. Programmatically selected AK, Gnanashanmugam D, Hesseling AC, Kampmann B, Mandalakas A,
multidrug-resistant strains drive the emergence of extensively drug- Marais BJ, Schito M, Spiegel HM, Starke JR, Worrell C, Zar HJ. 2015.
resistant tuberculosis in South Africa. PLoS One 8:e70919. https://doi Clinical case definitions for classification of intrathoracic tuberculosis in
.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070919. children: an update. Clin Infect Dis 61(Suppl 3):S179 –S187. https://doi
12. Jacobson KR, Barnard M, Kleinman MB, Streicher EM, Ragan EJ, White LF, .org/10.1093/cid/civ581.
Shapira O, Dolby T, Simpson J, Scott L, Stevens W, van Helden PD, Van 28. Wiseman CA, Gie RP, Starke JR, Schaaf HS, Donald PR, Cotton MF,
Rie A, Warren RM. 2017. Implications of failure to routinely diagnose Hesseling AC. 2012. A proposed comprehensive classification of tuber-
resistance to second-line drugs in patients with rifampicin-resistant culosis disease severity in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 31:347–352.
tuberculosis on Xpert MTB/RIF: a multisite observational study. Clin https://doi.org/10.1097/INF.0b013e318243e27b.
Infect Dis 64:1502–1508. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix128. 29. Steingart KR, Sohn H, Schiller I, Kloda LA, Boehme CC, Pai M, Dendukuri
13. Marais BJ, Graham SM, Maeurer M, Zumla A. 2013. Progress and chal- N. 2013. Xpert® MTB/RIF assay for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin
lenges in childhood tuberculosis. Lancet Infect Dis 13:287–289. https:// resistance in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013:CD009593.
doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70031-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009593.pub2.
14. Zar HJ, Hanslo D, Apolles P, Swingler G, Hussey G. 2005. Induced sputum 30. Oberhelman RA, Soto-Castellares G, Caviedes L, Castillo ME, Kissinger P,
versus gastric lavage for microbiological confirmation of pulmonary Moore DA, Evans C, Gilman RH. 2006. Improved recovery of Mycobacte-
tuberculosis in infants and young children: a prospective study. Lancet rium tuberculosis from children using the microscopic observation
365:130 –134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17702-2. drug susceptibility method. Pediatrics 118:e100-e106. https://doi.org/
15. Rachow A, Clowes P, Saathoff E, Mtafya B, Michael E, Ntinginya EN, 10.1542/peds.2005-2623.
Kowour D, Rojas-Ponce G, Kroidl A, Maboko L, Heinrich N, Reither K, 31. Allen BW. 1989. Isolation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from faeces. Med
Hoelscher M. 2012. Increased and expedited case detection by Xpert Lab Sci 46:101–106.
MTB/RIF assay in childhood tuberculosis: a prospective cohort study. Clin 32. Siddiqi H, Rüsch-Gerdes S. 2007. MGIT procedure manual. Foundation
Infect Dis 54:1388 –1396. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cis190. for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), Geneva, Switzerland.
16. Al-Aghbari N, Al-Sonboli N, Yassin MA, Coulter JB, Atef Z, Al-Eryani A, 33. Hillemann D, Rusch-Gerdes S, Boehme C, Richter E. 2011. Rapid
Cuevas LE. 2009. Multiple sampling in one day to optimize smear molecular detection of extrapulmonary tuberculosis by the auto-
microscopy in children with tuberculosis in Yemen. PLoS One 4:e5140. mated GeneXpert MTB/RIF system. J Clin Microbiol 49:1202–1205.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005140. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02268-10.
17. Walters E, Gie RP, Hesseling AC, Friedrich SO, Diacon AH, Gie RP. 2012. 34. Kokuto H, Sasaki Y, Yoshimatsu S, Mizuno K, Yi L, Mitarai S. 2015.
Rapid diagnosis of pediatric intrathoracic tuberculosis from stool sam- Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) in fecal specimens from
ples using the Xpert MTB/RIF assay: a pilot study. Pediatr Infect Dis J adults diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis using the Xpert MTB/
31:1316. https://doi.org/10.1097/INF.0b013e318268d25e. rifampicin test. Open Forum Infect Dis 2:ofv074. https://doi.org/10.1093/
18. DiNardo AR, Hahn A, Leyden J, Stager C, Baron EJ, Graviss EA, Manda- ofid/ofv074.
lakas AM, Guy E. 2015. Use of string test and stool specimens to 35. Allen BW. 1991. Comparison of three methods for decontamination of
diagnose pulmonary tuberculosis. Int J Infect Dis 41:50 –52. https://doi faeces for isolation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Tubercle 72:214 –217.
.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2015.10.022. https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-3879(91)90011-G.
19. El Khechine A, Henry M, Raoult D, Drancourt M. 2009. Detection of 36. Yajko DM, Nassos PS, Sanders CA, Gonzalez PC, Reingold AL, Horsburgh
Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex organisms in the stools of patients CR, Jr, Hopewell PC, Chin DP, Hadley WK. 1993. Comparison of four
with pulmonary tuberculosis. Microbiology 155:2384 –2389. https://doi decontamination methods for recovery of Mycobacterium avium com-
.org/10.1099/mic.0.026484-0. plex from stools. J Clin Microbiol 31:302–306.
20. Oberhelman RA, Soto-Castellares G, Gilman RH, Caviedes L, Castillo ME, 37. Mavenyengwa RT, Nziramasanga P. 2003. Use of culture methods for
Kolevic L, Del Pino T, Saito M, Salazar-Lindo E, Negron E, Montenegro S, recovery of atypical mycobacteria from stools of AIDS patients. Cent Afr
Laguna-Torres VA, Moore DA, Evans CA. 2010. Diagnostic approaches for J Med 49:31–37.
paediatric tuberculosis by use of different specimen types, culture meth- 38. El Khechine A, Drancourt M. 2011. Diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis
ods, and PCR: a prospective case-control study. Lancet Infect Dis 10: in a microbiological laboratory. Med Mal Infect 41:509 –517. https://doi
612– 620. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70141-9. .org/10.1016/j.medmal.2011.07.012.
21. Donald PR, Schaaf HS, Gie RP, Beyers N, Sirgel FA, Venter A. 1996. Stool 39. Peres PJ, Gevaudan MJ, Gulian C, de Micco P. 1988. Une methode de
microscopy and culture to assist the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculo- traitment des produits pathologiques en vue de l’isolement des myco-
sis in childhood. J Trop Pediatr 42:311–312. https://doi.org/10.1093/ bacteries. Revue Fr Lab 173:67–74.
tropej/42.5.311. 40. Asmar S, Chatellier S, Mirande C, van Belkum A, Canard I, Raoult D,
22. Monkongdee P, McCarthy KD, Cain KP, Tasaneeyapan T, Nguyen HD, Drancourt M. 2016. A chlorhexidine- agar plate culture medium
Nguyen TN, Nguyen TB, Teeratakulpisarn N, Udomsantisuk N, Heilig C, protocol to complement standard broth culture of Mycobacterium
Varma JK. 2009. Yield of acid-fast smear and mycobacterial culture for tuberculosis. Front Microbiol 7:30. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016
tuberculosis diagnosis in people with human immunodeficiency virus. .00030.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med 180:903–908. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm 41. Steingart KR, Henry M, Ng V, Hopewell PC, Ramsay A, Cunningham J,
.200905-0692OC. Urbanczik R, Perkins M, Aziz MA, Pai M. 2006. Fluorescence versus
23. Oramasionwu GE, Heilig CM, Udomsantisuk N, Kimerling ME, Eng B, conventional sputum smear microscopy for tuberculosis: a systematic
Nguyen HD, Thai S, Keo C, McCarthy KD, Varma JK, Cain KP. 2013. The review. Lancet Infect Dis 6:570 –581. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473
utility of stool cultures for diagnosing tuberculosis in people living with -3099(06)70578-3.
the human immunodeficiency virus. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 17:1023–1028. 42. Weyer K. 1998. Laboratory services in tuberculosis control. World Health
https://doi.org/10.5588/ijtld.13.0061. Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
24. Nicol MP, Spiers K, Workman L, Isaacs W, Munro J, Black F, Zemanay W, 43. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM,

December 2017 Volume 55 Issue 12 jcm.asm.org 3364

Stool Culture for Tuberculosis Diagnosis in Children Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC, group S. 2003. Towards use in the United Kingdom. Arch Dis Child 86:11–14. https://doi.org/10
complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the .1136/adc.86.1.11.
STARD initiative. Ann Clin Biochem 40:357–363. https://doi.org/10.1258/ 45. Marais BJ, Gie RP, Obihara CC, Hesseling AC, Schaaf HS, Beyers N. 2005.
000456303766476986. Well defined symptoms are of value in the diagnosis of childhood
44. Wright CM, Booth IW, Buckler JM, Cameron N, Cole TJ, Healy MJ, Hulse pulmonary tuberculosis. Arch Dis Child 90:1162–1165. https://doi.org/10
JA, Preece MA, Reilly JJ, Williams AF. 2002. Growth reference charts for .1136/adc.2004.070797.

December 2017 Volume 55 Issue 12 jcm.asm.org 3365