. 2017 Feb 8;36(7):1253–1259. doi: 10.1007/s10096-017-2916-9

Table 4.

GDH/toxin A&B algorithm by EIAs and CLIAs compared to cell cytotoxicity assay

Assay	Finding	Cell cytotoxicity assay		% Sensitivity (95% CI)	% Specificity (95% CI)	% PPV (95% CI)	% NPV (95% CI)
Assay	Finding	Positive	Negative	% Sensitivity (95% CI)	% Specificity (95% CI)	% PPV (95% CI)	% NPV (95% CI)
EIAs	Positive^a	18	1	72.0 (50.4–87.1)	99.6 (97.7–100)	94.7 (71.9–99.7)	97.5 (94.7–98.9)
EIAs	Negative^b	7^c	274	72.0 (50.4–87.1)	99.6 (97.7–100)	94.7 (71.9–99.7)	97.5 (94.7–98.9)
CLIAs	Positive^a	22	2	88.0 (67.7–96.8)	99.3 (97.1–99.9)	91.7 (71.5–98.5)	98.9 (96.6–99.7)
CLIAs	Negative^b	3^c	273	88.0 (67.7–96.8)	99.3 (97.1–99.9)	91.7 (71.5–98.5)	98.9 (96.6–99.7)

CLIA chemiluminescent immunoassays, EIA enzyme immunoassays, CI confidence interval, PPV positive predictive values, NPV negative predictive values

^aPositive GDH assay confirmed by the toxin assay

^bEither one of the assays or both assays negative

^cTrue positive GDH assay and negative toxin assay