Table 6.
Diagnostic test performance calculated from 2 × 2 tables for presence of (homozygous or) heterozygous deficient genotype.
| Study | Year | Calculated sensitivity | Calculated specificity | Calculated PPV | Calculated NPV | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPMT*2, TPMT*3a, TPMT*3b, TPMT*3c | ||||||
| Ben Salah | 2013 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | [13] |
| Fangbin | 2012 | 38.5% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 97.3% | [26] |
| Ganiere-Monteil | 2004 | 92.7% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 99.3% | [58] |
| Gazouli | 2012 | 52.2% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 73.8% | [29] |
| Serpe | 2009 | 13.4% | 98.3% | 78.8% | 70.3% | [35] |
| von Ahsen | 2005 | † | 100.0% | † | 75.8% | [65] |
| Winter | 2007 | 64.7% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 95.0% | [10] |
| Xin | 2009 | 29.2% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 88.1% | [36] |
| Zhang | 2007 | 36.8% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 95.6% | [37] |
| TPMT*2, TPMT*3a, TPMT*3c | ||||||
| Fakhoury | 2007 | 29.3% | 97.5% | 85.7% | 72.6% | [25] |
| Ford | 2009 | † | † | † | † | [28] |
| Hindorf | 2012 | 69.5% | 98.8% | 89.5% | 95.5% | [30] |
| Liang | 2013 | 60.0% | 98.7% | 90.0% | 92.8% | [14] |
| Ma | 2006 | 67.7% | 99.8% | 95.5% | 98.4% | [39] |
| Marinaki | 2003 | 55.6% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 95.0% | [60] |
| TPMT*2, TPMT*3b, TPMT*3c | ||||||
| Larussa | 2012 | 22.2% | 97.0% | 80.0% | 69.6% | [31] |
| Milek | 2006 | 50.0% | 97.6% | 75.0% | 93.1% | [33] |
| Wusk | 2004 | † | † | † | † | [11] |
| TPMT*2, TPMT*3a, TPMT*3b, TPMT*3c, TPMT*3d | ||||||
| Schaeffeler | 2004 | 86.8% | 99.4% | 94.9% | 98.4% | [62] |
| Schwab | 2002 | 100.0% | 96.6% | 62.5% | 100.0% | [64] |
| Wennerstrand | 2013 | 17.4% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 59.6% | [16] |
| TPMT*3a, TPMT*3b, TPMT*3c | ||||||
| Langley | 2002 | 66.7% | 90.9% | 60.0% | 93.0% | [59] |
| Lennard | 2013 | † | † | † | 92.2% | [32] |
| TPMT*2, TPMT*3 | ||||||
| Ford | 2006 | 80.6% | 98.1% | 80.6% | 98.1% | [27] |
| TPMT*1, TPMT*2, TPMT*3a, TPMT*3b, TPMT*3c | ||||||
| Jorquera | 2012 | 83.3% | 99.5% | 93.8% | 98.4% | [38] |
| TPMT*2, TPMT*3a, TPMT*3b, TPMT*3c, TPMT*6 | ||||||
| Loennechen | 2001 | 95.8% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 99.6% | [23] |
| TPMT*2, TPMT*3a, TPMT*3b, TPMT*3c, TPMT*3d, TPMT*8 | ||||||
| Oselin | 2006 | † | † | † | † | [34] |
| TPMT*1, TPMT*2, TPMT*3a, TPMT*3b, TPMT*3c, TPMT*1S, TPMT*1A, TPMT*7, TPMT *3d | ||||||
| Spire-Vayron de la Moureyre | 1998 | 83.3% | 94.1% | 93.8% | 84.2% | [67] |
| TPMT*2, TPMT*3a, TPMT*3b, TPMT*3c, TPMT*3D, TPMT*4, TPMT*5, TPMT*6, TPMT*7 | ||||||
| Spire-Vayron de la Moureyre | 1998 | 54.5% | 94.3% | 66.7% | 90.9% | [24] |
| TPMT*1, TPMT*2, TPMT*3a, TPMT*3c | ||||||
| Yates | 1997 | 96.3% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 95.6% | [66] |
†
Unable to calculate.
NPV: Negative predictive value; PPV: Positive predictive value.