Evaluation of mobile digital light-emitting diode fluorescence microscopy in Hanoi, Viet Nam.

Hanoi Lung Hospital, Hanoi, Viet Nam.To compare the accuracy of CellScopeTB, a manually operated mobile digital fluorescence microscope, with conventional microscopy techniques.Patients referred for sputum smear microscopy to the Hanoi Lung Hospital from May to September 2013 were included. Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN) smear microscopy, conventional light-emitting diode (LED) fluorescence microscopy (FM), CellScopeTB-based LED FM and Xpert(®) MTB/RIF were performed on sputum samples. The sensitivity and specificity of microscopy techniques were determined in reference to Xpert results, and differences were compared using McNemar's paired test of proportions.Of 326 patients enrolled, 93 (28.5%) were Xpert-positive for TB. The sensitivity of ZN microscopy, conventional LED FM, and CellScopeTB-based LED FM was respectively 37.6% (95%CI 27.8-48.3), 41.9% (95%CI 31.8-52.6), and 35.5% (95%CI 25.8-46.1). The sensitivity of CellScopeTB was similar to that of conventional LED FM (difference -6.5%, 95%CI -18.2 to 5.3, P = 0.33) and ZN microscopy (difference -2.2%, 95%CI -9.2 to 4.9, P = 0.73). The specificity was >99% for all three techniques.CellScopeTB performed similarly to conventional microscopy techniques in the hands of experienced TB microscopists. However, the sensitivity of all sputum microscopy techniques was low. Options enabled by digital microscopy, such as automated imaging with real-time computerized analysis, should be explored to increase sensitivity.