Skip to main content
. 2020 Jun 26;24:378. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03102-2

Table 4.

Comparisons of Unyvero vs conventional microbiological methods for all episodes, according to Unyvero version and to previous antibiotic use

Finding N positive N negative Sensitivity Specificity (%) PPV (%) NPV (%)
True False True False
Total (n = 93)
 Pathogen identification 65 6 1 19 77.4 14.3 91.5 5
 Resistance mechanism 19 9 43 22 46.3 82.7 67.9 66.2
P55 cartridge (n = 51)
 Pathogen identification 39 1 1 10 79.6 50 97.5 9
 Resistance mechanism 12 7 21 11 52.1 75 63.2 65.6
HPN cartridge (n = 42)
 Pathogen identification 26 5 0 9 74.3 0 83.9 0
 Resistance mechanism 7 2 22 11 38.9 91.7 77.8 66.7
Previous antimicrobial treatment (n = 75)
 Pathogen identification 54 6 1 14 79.4 14.2 90 6.7
 Resistance mechanism 15 8 31 21 41.7 79.5 65.2 59.6
No previous antimicrobial treatment (n = 18)
 Pathogen identification 13 0 0 5 72.2 0 100 0
 Resistance mechanism 4 1 12 1 80 92.3 80 92.3

Conventional microbiological methods were considered as the gold standard

PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, HPN hospitalised pneumonia