Skip to main content
. 2018 May 30;20(5):e198. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9901

Table 4.

The table displays the estimates of diagnostic test accuracy in 2 studies comparing automated trigger-based tools with a manual trigger-based tool as reference standard.

Study Type of adverse events 2x2 table for adverse events (True positive / false positive / false negative / true negative) Prevalencea, % (95% CI) Positive predictive valueb, % (95% CI) False negative ratec (%)
Gerdes and Hardahl, 2013 [44] Pressure ulcer 28 / 22 / 12 / 436 5.6 (3.6-7.6) 56 (42.2-69.8) 30
O’Leary et al, 2013 [41] Adverse drug event 24 / 22 / 20 / N/Ad 9.6 (5.9-13.3) 52.2 (37.7-66.6) 45.5

Hospital acquired infection 7 / 11 / 4 / N/A 2.8 (0.8-4.9) 38.9 (16.4-61.4) 36.4

Operative or procedural injury 5 / 4 / 4 / N/A 2 (0.3-3.7) 55.6 (23.1-88) 44.4

Manifestation of poor glycemic control 3 / 2 / 5 / N/A 1.2 (−0.2 to 2.6) 60 (17.1-102.9) 62.5

Pressure ulcer 0 / 8 / 2 / N/A 0 (0-0) 0 (0-0) 100

Venous thromboembolism 5 / 1 / 0 / N/A 2 (0.3-3.7) 83.3 (53.5-113.2) 0

Acute renal failure 2 / 1 / 0 / N/A 0.8 (−0.3 to 1.9) 66.7 (13.3-120) 0

Delirium 0 / 0 / 0 / N/A 0 (0-0) 0 (0-0) 0

Fall 0 / 0 / 0 / N/A 0 (0-0) 0 (0-0) 0

Other 0 / 2 / 5 / N/A 0 (0-0) 0 (0-0) 100

aPrevalence is calculated by true positive/total number of patients.

bCalculated as triggers corresponding to an adverse event out of all triggers=true positive/(true positive+false positive).

cCalculated as false negative/(false negative+true positive).

dN/A: not applicable.