Table 4. The performance of three models based on gender, clinical manifestations, and endoscopic findings to differentiate intestinal tuberculosis from Crohn's disease.
Cut-point to obtain the best performance of the models | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cut-point (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | Accuracy (%) | ||
Model 1 | 75.12 | 59.1 | 100 | 100 | 75.0 | 81.6 | |
Model 2 | 41.27 | 90.9 | 81.5 | 80.0 | 91.7 | 85.7 | |
Model 3 | 74.52 | 86.4 | 88.9 | 86.4 | 88.9 | 87.8 | |
Cut-point to obtain the NPV of 100% for diagnosis of intestinal tuberculosis | |||||||
Cut-point (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | FP | FN | |
Model 1 | 17.29 | 100 | 44.4 | 59.5 | 100 | 15/27 | 0 |
Model 2 | 20.62 | 100 | 44.4 | 59.5 | 100 | 15/27 | 0 |
Model 3 | 7.27 | 100 | 37.0 | 56.4 | 100 | 17/27 | 0 |
FP, false-positive (misdiagnosis of intestinal tuberculosis in patients with Crohn's disease); FN, false-negative (misdiagnosis of Crohn's disease in patient with intestinal tuberculosis); NPV, negative predicted value; PPV, positive predicted value.