Table 3.
Diagnostic Accuracy of Criteria Sets Compared With Reference Standard: “Full” Criteriaa
| Criteria | Sensitivity (95% CI), % | Specificity (95% CI), % | NPV (95% CI), % | PPV (95% CI), % | P Valueb | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity vs Duke-ISCVID Sensitivity | Specificity vs Duke-ISCVID Specificity | |||||
| Modified Duke criteria | 74.9 (70.4–79.1) | 94.9 (90.8–97.5) | 65.0 (59.2–70.6) | 96.8 (94.1–98.4) | <.001 | .16 |
| 2015 ESC criteria | 80.0 (75.7–83.8) | 93.9 (89.6–96.8) | 69.7 (63.8–75.2) | 96.4 (93.8–98.1) | <.001 | >.99 |
| 2023 ESC criteria | 85.5 (81.6–88.8) | 82.1 (76.1–87.2) | 73.5 (67.2–79.2) | 90.7 (87.3–93.4) | .22 | <.001 |
| Duke-ISCVID criteria | 84.2 (80.3–87.7) | 93.9 (89.6–96.8) | 74.5 (68.6–79.8) | 96.6 (94.1–98.2) | … | … |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; ESC, European Society of Cardiology; ISCVID, International Society of Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, negative predictive value.
aDiagnostic accuracy with adjudication panel as the reference standard. “Full” criteria include histologic and microbiological results obtained from cardiac surgery. The absolute numbers for each classification-diagnosis combination are listed in Supplementary Table 1.
b P values based on McNemar test statistics [23].