Table 5.
Ranking of diagnostic performance of discrimination indices for differential βTT (n = 537) from IDA (n = 370) in patients with microcytic anemia based on sensitivity (TPR), specificity (TNR), positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV), Youden’s index, accuracy, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under the curve (AUC) (lower rank shows better diagnostic performance).
| Discriminant Formula | TPR | TNR | PPV | NPV | Youden’s Index | Accuracy | DOR | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| England and Fraser (E&F) | 23 | 6 | 6 | 22 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 |
| RBC | 15 | 21 | 19 | 16 | 19 | 17 | 18 | 18 |
| Mentzer | 9.5 | 13 | 7 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Srivastava | 22 | 9 | 10 | 20 | 15 | 16 | 16 | 15 |
| Shine and Lal (S&L) | 1 | 26 | 24 | 1 | 22 | 22 | 22 | |
| Bessman | 28 | 10 | 28 | 27 | 27 | 27 | 26 | 27 |
| Ricerca | 2 | 27 | 25 | 13 | 25 | 23 | 22 | 25 |
| Green and King (G&K) | 14 | 13 | 8 | 11 | 7 | 6 | 10 | 7 |
| Das Gupta | 6 | 24 | 22 | 6 | 21 | 20 | 17 | 21 |
| Jayabose (RDWI) | 8 | 20 | 17 | 5 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 13 |
| Telmissani – MCHD | 3 | 28 | 26 | 23 | 26 | 24 | 23 | 26 |
| Telmissani – MDHL | 24 | 5 | 9 | 24 | 20 | 21 | 21 | 20 |
| Huber – Herklotz | 26 | 4 | 21 | 26 | 24 | 26 | 24 | 24 |
| Kerman I | 7 | 22 | 18 | 4 | 14 | 11 | 9 | 14 |
| Kerman II | 11.5 | 7 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2 |
| Sirdah | 17 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Ehsani | 9.5 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Keikhaei | 11.5 | 16 | 13 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 12 | 9 |
| Nishad | 16 | 14 | 12 | 14 | 8 | 10 | 13 | 8 |
| Wongprachum | 13 | 18 | 14 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 12 |
| Sehgal | 5 | 19 | 16 | 3 | 10 | 8 | 2 | 10 |
| Pornprasert | 27 | 25 | 27 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 27 | 28 |
| Sirachainan | 25 | 15 | 23 | 25 | 23 | 25 | 25 | 23 |
| Bordba | 4 | 23 | 20 | 2 | 16 | 14 | 3 | 16 |
| Matos and Carvalho | 20 | 11 | 11 | 19 | 11 | 15 | 15 | 11 |
| Janel (11 T) | 19 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 5 |
| CRUISE | 21 | 17 | 15 | 21 | 17 | 18 | 20 | 18 |
| Index26 | 18 | 1 | 1 | 17 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 |