Skip to main content
. 2016 Nov;8(11):3205–3216. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2016.11.61

Table 3. Direct comparison.

Group Study (n) Patient (n) Biopsy (n) Technique Sensitivity (95% CI) (%) P Specificity (95% CI) (%) P DOR (95% CI) P AUC (95% CI) (%) P
Original pathological criteria
   WLB versus AFB 30 2,492 6,062 WLB 51 [42–60] <0.001 79 [72–85] 0.002 4 [3–5] <0.001 71 [67–75] <0.001
AFB 86 [82–90] 62 [54–70] 10 [7–15] 84 [81–87]
   WLB versus AFB + WLB 14 2,578 7,813 WLB 51 [35–66] <0.001 83 [75–89] <0.001 5 [3–9] 0.126 77 [74–81] 0.083
AFB + WLB 88 [80–93] 57 [45–68] 10 [5–19] 82 [78–85]
   WLB versus NBI 3 154 226 WLB 29 [17–44] <0.001 82 [74–88] 0.043 2 [1–6] 0.008 66 [47–85] 0.030
NBI 79 [65–90] 71 [62–78] 19 [7–52] 89 [82–96]
Moderate dysplasia, severe dysplasia, CIS and invasive carcinoma
   WLB versus AFB 6 728 1,549 WLB 50 [25–75] 0.009 83 [64–93] 0.009 5 [2–12] 0.393 75 [71–79] 0.271
AFB 88 [74–95] 50 [33–66] 7 [4–12] 76 [72–80]
   WLB versus AFB + WLB 5 862 2,727 WLB 46 [20–73] 0.062 91 [87–94] <0.001 9 [3–24] 0.413 89 [86–92] <0.001
AFB + WLB 85 [54–97] 71 [57–82] 14 [4–51] 81 [77–84]
   WLB versus NBI 1 22 64 WLB 62 65
NBI 100 43

WLB, white light bronchoscopy; AFB, autofluorescence bronchoscopy; AFB + WLB, AFB combined with WLB; NBI, narrow-band imaging; DOR, diagnostic odds ratio; AUC, area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve; CIS, carcinoma in situ.