Table 4

Diagnostic accuracy according to the examinations

Methods

Ip

Ip+AO

Ip+AO+Iq

Ip+AO+Iq+P

(Four Examinations)

Criterion

N%

N%-52.0%

N%

N%-51.5%

N%

N%-33.5%

N%

N%-28.5%

N simulated

13800

13800

13800

13800

13800

13800

13800

13800

N missing*

200

200

200

200

0

0

0

0

N valid

13600

13600

13600

13600

13800

13800

13800

13800

TP

3033

3349

3502

4021

5791

6085

5951

6199

FP

46

40

37

44

25

33

18

35

FN

3767

3451

3298

2779

1109

815

949

701

TN

6754

6760

6763

6756

6875

6867

6882

6865

Accuracy

72.0%

(71.2;72.7)

74.3%

(73.6;75.1)

75.5%

(74.8;76.2)

79.2%

(78.6;79.9)

91.8%

(91.3;92.3)

93.9%

(93.5;94.3)

93.0%

(92.6;93.4)

94.7%

(94.3;95.1)

Sensitivity

44.6%

(43.4;45.8)

49.2%

(48.1;50.4)

51.5%

(50.3;52.7)

59.1%

(58.0;60.3)

83.9%

(83.1;84.8)

88.2%

(87.4;88.9)

86.2%

(85.4;87;1)

89.8%

(89.1;90.6)

Specificity

99.3%

(99.1;99.5)

99.4%

(99.2;99.6)

99.5%

(99.3;99.6)

99.4%

(99.2;99.5)

99.6%

(99.5;99.8)

99.5%

(99.4;99.7)

99.7%

(99.6;99.9)

99.5%

(99.3;99.7)

Predictive value (-)

64.2%

(63.3;65.1)

66.2%

(65.3;67.1)

67.2%

(66.3;68.2)

70.9%

(70.0;71.8)

86.1%

(85.4;86.9)

89.4%

(88.7;90.1)

87.9%

(87.2;88.6)

90.7%

(90.1;91.4)

Predictive value (+)

98.5%

(98.1;99.0)

98.8%

(98.4;99.2)

99.0%

(98.7;99.3)

98,9%

(98.6;99.3)

99.6%

(99.4;99.8)

99.5%

(99.3;99.7)

99.7%

(99.6;99.9)

99.4%

(99.3;99.7)

Ip: inspection, AO: auscultation-olfaction, Iq: inquiry, P: palpation, TP: true positive, FP: false positive, FN: false negative, TN: true negative, N: number of cases, N_%: quantity of available information

Note: Missing cases are due to absence of manifestations describing the inspection method.

Ferreira Chinese Medicine 2009 4:24   doi:10.1186/1749-8546-4-24