Skip to main content
. 2016 Oct 22;30(6):1864–1871. doi: 10.1111/jvim.14604

Table 1.

Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and polychoric correlation for equine crossmatch and blood typing methods compared to standard tube methods

Polychoric Correlation Sensitivity (%) 95% CI Specificity (%) 95% CI PPV (%) 95% CI NPV (%) 95% CI LR+ 95% CI LR− 95% CI AUC ROC 95% CI
Crossmatcha
TUBE vs. MICRO 0.97 85.71 73.78–93.62 96.67 90.57–99.31 94.12 83.76–98.77 91.58 84.08–96.26 25.74 8.40–78.63 0.15 0.08–0.28 0.91 0.86–0.96
TUBE vs. GEL (Agglutination) 0.882 91.07 80.38–97.04 82.22 72.74–89.48 76.12 64.14–85.69 93.67 85.84–97.91 5.12 3.26–8.05 0.11 0.05–0.25 0.9 0.85–0.95
TUBE vs. GEL (Hemolysin) 0.834 28.57 13.22–48.67 99.15 95.37–99.98 88.89 51.75–99.72 85.4 78.36–90.85 33.71 4.39–260.00 0.72 0.57–0.91 0.64 0.55–0.72
TUBE vs. PREDICTED 0.943 69.64 55.90–81.22 98.89 93.96–99.97 97.5 86.84–99.94 83.96 75.57–90.37 62.68 8.86–440.00 0.31 0.21–0.46 0.85 0.78–0.90
Ca Blood Typingc
Standard vs. STRIP 1 100 87.66–1b 100 96.92–1b 100 87.66–1b 100 96.92–1b Inf N/A 0.00 N/A 1 1.00–1.00
bOne‐sided 97.5% CI

aTest method as compared to standard tube crossmatch as reference value for 146 recipient‐donor pairs. bOne‐sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI). TUBE, tube crossmatch by standard gross macroscopic assessment of agglutination. MICRO, microscopic assessment of agglutination, tube method. GEL, crossmatch by gel column technique. PREDICTED, compatibility as predicted by prior blood type and alloantibody assays. Standard, Standard polyclonal blood typing assay. STRIP, immunochromatographic strip Ca blood typing kit. cImmunochromatographic strip method as compared to standard blood typing for Ca antigen as reference value. A value of 1 for polychoric correlation indicates perfect correlation. Prevalence of incompatible blood by TUBE agglutination was 38% (56/146). Prevalence of incompatible blood by TUBE hemolysis was 19% (28/146). Prevalence of Ca+ blood type was 92% (35/38).