Skip to main content
. 2016 Jul;8(7):1688–1696. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2016.06.06

Table S2. Diagnostic accuracy of CCTA vs. ExECG in the included studies.

Effort size Cademartiri F et al. (8) Hamilton-Craig et al. (9) Maffei E et al. (10) Mollet NR et al. (11) Nagori M et al. (12) Nieman K et al. (13) Ovrehus KA et al. (14)
CCTA ExECG CCTA ExECG CCTA ExECG CCTA ExECG CCTA ExECG CCTA ExECG CCTA ExECG
N 42 37 322 240 147 147 61 52 41 40 96 59 95 97
TP 32 22 18 5 72 35 46 31 18 8 53 24 26 20
FP 1 3 17 22 25 34 2 4 1 1 26 6 11 43
FN 0 6 0 1 3 40 0 8 0 3 2 10 1 8
TN 9 6 287 212 47 38 13 9 22 28 15 19 57 26
Sensitivity (%) 100 79 100 83 96 46.7 100 79.5 100 72.7 96 71 96 71
Specificity (%) 90 67 94 91 65.3 52.8 86.7 69.2 95.6 96.6 37 76 84 38
PPV (%) 97 88 51 19 74.2 50.7 95.8 88.6 94.7 88.9 67 80 70 32
NPV (%) 100 50 100 100 94 48.7 100 52.9 100 90.3 88 66 98 77
PLR 10.00 2.36 17.90 8.86 2.76 1.00 7.5 2.58 23.00 21.10 1.52 2.94 9.20 1.15
NLR 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.18 0.06 1.01 0 0.29 0 0.28 0.10 0.38 0.01 0.76

CCTA, coronary computed tomography angiography; ExECG, exercise electrocardiography; TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; PLR, positive likelihood ratio; NLR, negative likelihood ratio.