Table 2.
Performance of hospital LM (compared to RDT, research LM and PCR) and RDT (compared to PCR)
| Diagnostic comparison | True+ | True− | False+ | False− | Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) | PPV (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EGH LM vs. RDT | 2 | 0a | 84 | 0 | 100.0 (19.8–100) | 0 (0–5.32)a | 2.33 (0.403–8.94) |
| EGH LM vs. research LM | 2 | 0a | 14 | 0 | 100.0 (19.8–100) | 0 (0–26.8)a | 12.5 (2.20–39.59) |
| EGH LM vs. PCR | 3 | 0a | 10 | 0 | 100.0 (31.0–100) | 0 (0–34.5)a | 23.1 (6.16–54.0) |
| RDT vs. research LM | 2 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 100.0 (19.8–100) | 100 (73.2–100) | 100 (19.8–100) |
| RDT vs. PCR | 2 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 66.7 (12.5–98.2) | 100 (65.5–100.0) | 100 (19.8–100) |
aOnly malaria–diagnosed subjects were included in the study, hence the true estimate for this value is unknown. PPV positive predictive value