Skip to main content

View full-text article in PMC

. 2014 Jun 14;7:271. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-7-271

Table 1.

Sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of each method, considering all methods combined as gold standard

Method	*H. nana*		*A. lumbricoides*
Method	N [Sensitivity (95% CI)]	NPV (95% CI)	N [Sensitivity (95% CI)]	NPV (95% CI)
Kato-Katz	22/193 [49.0 (33.2-64.6)]	86.5 (81.1-92.0)	27/193 [84.4 (70.2-98.5) **]	96.7 (94.1-99.9)
McMaster	28/193 [60.5 (44.7-76.2)]	89.7 (84.8-94.6)	17/193 [48.3 (28.4-68.2)]	91.5 (87.1-95.9)
Mini-FLOTAC (FS2)	42/193 [92.7 (83.5-100.0)*]	98.0 (95.5-100.0)	20/193 [61.3 (42.5-80.1)]	93.1 (89.0-97.1)
Mini-FLOTAC (FS7)	35/193 [77.8 (64.5-91.0)]	93.7 (89.6-97.8)	28/193 [87.1 (73.7-100)**]	97.6 (94.9-100.0)

*Significant difference (p < 0.05) with McMaster and with Kato-Katz.

**Significant difference (p < 0.05) with McMaster.