Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Infect Control. 2015 Mar 31;43(6):592–599. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2015.02.019

Table 3.

Performance Characteristics of Alternative Methods of CAUTI Surveillance Compared with the Reference Standard: Sensitivity, Specificity, and Positive and Negative Predictive Values

Sensitivity
(95% CI*)		 Specificity
(95% CI)		 Positive Predictive
Value (95% CI)		 Negative Predictive
Value (95% CI)
Traditional Surveillance
43.8% (26.4 – 62.3%) 82.5% (75.3 – 88.4%) 35.9% (21.2 – 52.8%) 86.8% (79.9 – 92.0%)
Electronic Surveillance
100.0% (89.1 – 100.0%) 2.8% (0.8 – 7.0%) 18.7% (13.2 – 25.4%) 100.0% (39.8 – 100.0%)
Augmented Electronic Surveillance
100.0% (89.1 – 100.0%) 100.0% (97.5% – 100.0%) 100.0% (89.1 – 100.0%) 100.0% (97.5 – 100.0%)
*

Abbreviations: CI – confidence interval