Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Maturitas. 2013 May 22;75(3):289–293. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2013.04.015

Table 2.

Validity of Methods: Classifying Perimenopause Status at Year 15 to Predict Observed Menopause Status at Year 20, CARDIA Cohort, 2000–2005

Method Sensitivity Specificity PPV a NPV b AUC c
Estimate 95 % CI Estimate 95%
SWAN 44.7 34.8, 54.5 88.9 86.9, 90.9 29.1 94.0 0.665
MCL 65.7 56.3, 75.5 70.2 67.4, 73.1 18.6 95.2 0.672
Age 77.4 69.4, 85.3 74.4 71.8, 77.2 23.9 96.9 0.830
MWHS 84.2 77.1, 90.7 75.0 73.6, 78.9 25.5 97.9 0.879
Full Prediction Model 75.2 67.9, 85.4 83.1 81.0, 85.6 31.3 97.0 0.885
Full Prediction Model + MCL 81.6 74.7, 89.8 81.0 78.5, 83.4 30.5 97.7 0.893

Abbreviations: CARDIA, Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study; CI, confidence interval; MCL, menstrual cycle length; MHWS, Massachusetts Women’s Health Study; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value; SWAN, Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation.

a

Positive predictive value (PPV: the percentage of women who were identified as perimenopausal at Year 15 and were menopausal at Year 20)

b

Negative predictive value (NPV: the percentage of women who were identified as premenopausal at Year 15 and were not menopausal at Year 20)

c

Differences in area under the curve (AUC) were tested using the SAS ROCCONTRAST statement (P-value ≤ 0.1):

  • SWAN AUC is statistically different from all other methods except for the MCL
  • MCL AUC is statistically different from all other methods except for the SWAN method
  • Age AUC is statistically different from all other methods.
  • MWHS AUC is statistically different from all other methods except for the Full Prediction Model
  • Full Prediction Model AUC is statistically different from all other methods except for the MWHS Model
  • Full Prediction Model + MCL AUC is statistically different from all other methods