Table 4.
Diagnostic performances of a GEL technique compared to a TUBE technique in feline AB system blood typing of 143 feline whole-blood samples anticoagulated with EDTA, where GEL mixed pattern results were considered as negative results.
| Statistics | Blood type with GEL (considering mixed-field pattern as negative | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| results) compared to TUBE technique | ||||||
| A | B | AB | ||||
| Value | 95% CI | Value | 95% CI | Value | 96% CI | |
| (%) | (%) | (%) | ||||
| Sensitivity (Se) | 100.00 | 96.31–100.00 | 96.00 | 79.65–99.90 | 95.00 | 75.13–99.87 |
| Specificity (Sp) | 100.00 | 92.13–100.00 | 99.15 | 95.37–99.98 | 99.19 | 95.55–99.98 |
| Positive likelihood ratio (PLR) | – | – | 113.28 | 16.06–798.86 | 116.85 | 16.55–825.09 |
| Negative likelihood ratio (NLR) | 0.00 | – | 0.04 | 0.01–0.28 | 0.05 | 0.01–0.34 |
| Positive predictive value(PPV) | 100.00 | – | 89.65 | 55.11–98.39 | 71.48 | 26.20–94.65 |
| Negative predictive value (NPV) | 100.00 | – | 99.69 | 97.94–99.95 | 99.89 | 99.27–99.98 |
| Accuracy | 100.00 | 97.45–100.00 | 98.93 | 95.55–99.92 | 99.10 | 95.83–99.95 |