Table 3.

Comparisons of AUC between two of six scoring systems of the prognosis of stroke patients.

Comparison group	rN	rA	(rN+rA)/2	(A1+A2)/2	r	Z-value
APACHEII and GCS	0.634	0.744	0.689	0.851	0.62	3.6309*
APACHE and CSS	0.292	0.587	0.439	0.857	0.38	1.7834
APACHEII and NIHSS	0.468	0.658	0.563	0.871	0.48	0.9591
APACHEII and vADL	0.271	0.53	0.4005	0.86	0.33	1.5457
APACHEII and APACHEIII	0.781	0.716	0.7485	0.8745	0.67	0.7848
APACHEIII and GCS	0.556	0.526	0.541	0.843	0.48	1.7134
APACHEIII and CSS	0.261	0.468	0.3645	0.8495	0.3	1.1563
APACHEIII and NIHSS	0.406	0.597	0.5015	0.863	0.43	0.3121
APACHEIII and ADL	0.172	0.472	0.322	0.8525	0.26	0.9522
CSS and GCS	0.522	0.708	0.615	0.8255	0.09	0.3375
CSS and NIHSS	0.874	0.909	0.8915	0.8455	0.87	−2.0266*
CSS and ADL	0.878	0.755	0.8165	0.835	0.78	−0.3408
NIHSS and GCS	0.737	0.808	0.7725	0.839	0.73	1.9407
NIHSS and ADL	0.733	0.776	0.7545	0.8485	0.71	1.0978
GCS and ADL	0.393	0.582	0.4875	0.8285	0.12	−5.098*

When Z-value was < 1.96, P-value was more than 0.05,which meant there was no significant difference in area under ROC curve between the two scoring methods.

^*Represented that there was significant differences.