Table 7.
Diagnostic performance of cCTA per patient for detecting relevant CAD in the literature.
| n | Prev. | TP | FP | TN | FN | Sen. | Spe. | PPV | NPV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pontone et al. (2011) [19] |
60 | 43.3% | 23 | 4 | 30 | 3 | 88.5% | 88.2% | 85.2% | 90.9% |
| Andreini et al. (2014) [13] |
325 | 29.8% | 87 | 21 | 207 | 10 | 89.7% | 90.8% | 80.6% | 95.4% |
| Hamdan et al. (2015) [15] |
115 | 42.6% | 47 | 18 | 48 | 2 | 95.9% | 72.7% | 72.3% | 96.0% |
| Harris et al. (2015) [16] |
100 | 74.0% | 73 | 11 | 15 | 1 | 98.6% | 57.7% | 86.9% | 93.8% |
| Opolski et al. (2015) [18] |
475 | 56.8% | 265 | 129 | 76 | 5 | 98.1% | 37.1% | 67.3% | 93.8% |
| Matsumoto et al. (2017) [17] |
60 | 40.0% | 22 | 15 | 21 | 2 | 91.7% | 58.3% | 59.5% | 91.3% |
| Rossi et al. (2017) [20] |
140 | 41.4% | 53 | 37 | 45 | 5 | 91.4% | 54.9% | 58.9% | 90.0% |
| Annoni et al. (2018) [14] |
115 | 20.0% | 22 | 12 | 80 | 1 | 95.7% | 87.0% | 64.7% | 98.8% |
| Strong et al. (2019) [23] |
200 | 34.5% | 69 | 76 | 55 | 0 | 100.0% | 42.0% | 47.6% | 100.0% |
| Our results | 388 | 35.6% | 135 | 137 | 113 | 3 | 97.8% | 45.2% | 49.6% | 97.4% |
| Combined results | 1978 | 41.9% | 40.2% | 23.3% | 34.9% | 1.6% | 96.1% | 60.0% | 63.4% | 95.6% |
FN = false negative, FP = false positive, NPV = negative predictive value, PPV = positive predictive value, Prev. = prevalence, Sen. = sensitivity, Spe. = specificity, TN = true negative, TP = true positive.