Table A3.

Regression Analyses of Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value, and Negative Predictive Value by Diabetes Status^a

Analysis	Diabetes Status	Unadjusted OR			Adjusted ORb
		n	OR	(95% CI)	n	OR	(95% CI)
Analysis of sensitivity		71			66
	Nondiabetic	45	1.00		41	1.00
	Diabetic	26	2.92	(.99–8.62)	25	3.68	(1.05–12.91)*
Analysis of specificity		168			157
	Nondiabetic	70	1.00		66	1.00
	Diabetic	98	0.88	(.46–1.72)	91	0.99	(.47–2.06)
Analysis of positive predictive value		97			95
	Nondiabetic	45	1.00		43	1.00
	Diabetic	52	0.55	(.24–1.23)	52	0.53	(.20–1.39)
Analysis of negative predictive value		142			128
	Nondiabetic	70	1.00		64	1.00
	Diabetic	72	4.71	(1.77–12.56)*	64	5.50	(1.83–16.56)*

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; OR, odds ratio.

^a Repeat analysis using the even higher cutoff ELISA level of 0.5 resulted in a similar outcome. Although the correspondingly lower number of positive results (and presumably higher number of false-negative results) makes statistical analysis less relevant, eosinophilia still proved to have a relatively poor sensitivity (67.8%), specificity (68.3%), and positive predictive value (41.2%). The negative predictive value was 86.6% and was once again higher in diabetic subjects (93.1%). Eosinophilia (≥0.5) and Strongyloides stercoralis (E-titer ≥ 0.4).

^b Adjusted for sex, age, BMI, and past antibiotic treatment.

*P < .05.