Table A3.
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.