Skip to main content
. 2015 May 3;30(7):861–873. doi: 10.1007/s00384-015-2205-y

Table 3.

Pooled diagnostic accuracy of included studies

POD Number of studies (n = patients) Pooled incidence PIC (%) Pooled AUC Pooled CRP cutoff (range) Pooled sensitivity (95 % CI) Pooled specificity (95 % CI) Pooled PPV (95 % CI) Pooled NPV (95 % CI) Pooled LR+ (95 % CI) Pooled LR− (95 % CI)
1 4 (n = 546) 18 0.73 157 (109–187) 60 % (47–71 %) 60 % (43–75 %) 41 % (27–56 %) 82 % (68–90 %) 1.48 (0.66–2.30) 0.67 (0.33–1.02)
2 6 (n = 881)a 24 0.72 190 (140–240) 66 % (54–76 %) 66 % (50–79 %) 45 % (31–60 %) 84 % (72–91 %) 1.95 (0.87–3.03) 0.51 (0.27–0.76)
3 9 (n = 1567) 32 0.87 159 (92–200) 77 % (68–84 %) 77 % (64–87 %) 57 % (43–71 %) 90 % (81–95 %) 3.41 (1.43–5.39) 0.29 (0.16–0.43)
4 6 (n = 894) 33 0.82 132 (101–180) 80 % (71–86 %) 80 % (67–88 %) 60 % (45–73 %) 91 % (83–95 %) 3.93 (1.58–6.28) 0.26 (0.13–0.38)
5 6 (n = 1104)a 17 0.83 114 (48–150) 86 % (79–91 %) 86 % (75–92 %) 64 % (49–77 %) 92 % (85–96 %) 6.07 (2.26–9.89) 0.17 (0.09–0.25)

POD postoperative day, AUC area under the receiver operating curve, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, LR+ positive likelihood ratio, LR− negative likelihood ratio

aOne study analyzed patients in two groups, laparoscopic vs open. Patients of the two groups were included separately in the analysis (as reported in the study)