Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Oct 8.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jan 17;204(3):209.e1–209.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.10.897

TABLE 4.

Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for screening tools

Variable Sensitivitya Specificitya Positive predictive valuea Negative predictive valuea
Screening tool
 Bleeding disorderb 89 (83–93) 16 (8–27) 72 (65–78) 37 (19–58)
 Low von Willebrand factor 73 (39–94) 12 (8–17) 4 (2–8) 89 (71–98)
 Platelet function defects 89 (82–94) 14 (8–23) 56 (49–63) 52 (32–71)
Screening tool combined with pictorial blood assessment score >185
 Bleeding disorderb 95 (90–98) 6 (2–15) 71 (65–77) 33 (10–65)
 Low von Willebrand factor 91 (59–100) 5 (3–9) 5 (2–9) 92 (62–100)
 Platelet function defects 94 (88–98) 5 (2–12) 55 (48–62) 42 (15–72)
Screening tool combined with ferritin ≤20 ng/mL
 Bleeding disorderb 93 (89–97) 11 (3–19) 72(66–78) 39 (16–61)
 Low von Willebrand factor 91 (59–100) 8 (4–12) 5 (2–8) 94 (84–100)
 Platelet function defects 92 (87–97) 8 (3–14) 55 (48–62) 44 (21–67)
Screening tool combined with platelet function analyzer–100
 Bleeding disorderb 89 (84–94) 16 (7–25) 72 (66–78) 37 (19–55)
 Low von Willebrand factor 73 (46–99) 12 (7–16) 4 (1–7) 89 (77–100)
 Platelet function defects 89 (84–95) 14 (7–21) 56 (49–63) 52 (33–71)
a

Data are given as percentage (95% confidence interval);

b

Platelet function defects, von Willebrand factor antigen, or von Willebrand factor ristocetin cofactor <50, coagulation defects, or prolonged platelet function analyzer–100 time.