. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Oct 5.

Published in final edited form as: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2010 Oct 7;58(3):837–840. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2010.2085003

TABLE II.

Test performance for prototype devices compared to NAAT results: TP=true positive, TN= true negative, FN=false negative, FP=false positive

Device	Specimen type	POC result compared to NAAT Positive (n)	Sensitivity %	95% CI	POC result compared to NAAT negative (n)	Specificity %	95% CI
Device A and B (N=33)	Cervical^*	TP (3)	38%	8-76%	TN (17)	77%	54-92%
	Cervical^*	FN (5)	38%	8-76%	FP (5)	77%	54-92%
	Vaginal	TP (3)	38%	8-76%	TN (15)	60%	40-83%
	Vaginal	FN (5)	38%	8-76%	FP (10)	60%	40-83%
Device C and D (N=50)	Cervical^**	TP (4)	80%	28-99%	TN (15)	37%	22-53%
	Cervical^**	FN (1)	80%	28-99%	FP (26)	37%	22-53%
	Vaginal^***	TP (4)	80%	28-99%	TN (11)	25%	13-40%
	Vaginal^***	FN (1)	80%	28-99%	FP (33)	25%	13-40%

two results were indeterminate, one result was missing

^**

four results were indeterminate

^***

one result was indeterminate