Table 4.
Diagnostic Accuracy of Criteria Sets Compared With Reference Standard: “Clinical” 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 | 69.9 (65.2–74.4) | 94.9 (90.8–97.5) | 60.8 (55.1–66.3) | 96.5 (93.7–98.3) | <.001 | .16 |
| 2015 ESC criteria | 74.9 (70.4–79.1) | 93.9 (89.6–96.8) | 64.8 (58.9–70.3) | 96.1 (93.4–98.0) | <.001 | 1 |
| 2023 ESC criteria | 80.7 (76.5–84.5) | 82.1 (76.1–87.2) | 67.7 (61.3–73.6) | 90.2 (86.6–93.1) | .09 | <.001 |
| Duke-ISCVID criteria | 79.0 (74.6–82.9) | 93.9 (89.6–96.8) | 68.7 (62.7–74.2) | 96.3 (93.7–98.1) | … | … |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; ESC, European Society of Cardiology; ISCVID, International Society of Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value.
aDiagnostic accuracy with adjudication panel as the reference standard. The “clinical” criteria exclude 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].