Table 4.
Diagnostic performance of FOCUS compared to the gold standard (cardiologist-performed echocardiography) in the study cohort
| Findings | TP | FP | TN | FN | Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) | PPV (95% CI) | NPV (95% CI) | Accuracy (95% CI) | LR+ (95% CI) | LR− (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PE | 18 | 8 | 176 | 3 | 86% (63–96) | 96% (91–98) | 69% (48–85) | 98% (95–99) | 95% (91–99) | 20 (10–40) | 0.15 (0.05–0.40) |
| RVP | 6 | 0 | 199 | 0 | 100% (52–100) | 100% (98–100) | 100% (52–100) | 100% (98–100) | 100% (98–100) | – | 0.0 |
| RVE | 27 | 4 | 172 | 2 | 93% (76–99) | 98% (94–99) | 87% (69–96) | 99% (96–99) | 97% (93–100) | 41 (15–109) | 0.07 (0.02–0.27) |
| WMA | 68 | 17 | 118 | 2 | 97% (89–99) | 87% (80–92) | 80% (70–88) | 98% (94–99) | 91% (84–97) | 8 (5–12) | 0.03 (0.01–0.13) |
| Low LVEF | 93 | 4 | 96 | 12 | 89% (81–99) | 96% (90–99) | 96% (89–99) | 89% (81–99) | 92% (85–99) | 22 (8–58) | 0.12 (0.07–0.2) |
PE pericardial effusion, RVP right ventricular pressure overload, RVE right ventricular enlargement, WMA wall motion abnormality, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, TP true positive, FP false positive, TN true negative, FN false negative, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, LR+ positive likelihood ratio, LR− negative likelihood ratio