Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2019 Dec 3;29(2):182–188. doi: 10.1002/pds.4919

TABLE 3.

Accuracy measurements of the NLP system in identifying anaphylaxis regardless of cause, including cases without notes

Site Reference standard (n/N) TP TN FN FP Sensitivity CI (%) Specificity CI (%) PPV CI (%) NPV CI (%) F-score CI
KPSC 26/423 22 388 4 9 84.6
65.1–95.6
97.7
95.7–98.9
71.0
52.0–85.8
99.0
97.4–99.7
0.83
0.40–0.99
Site 2 4/46 3 33 1 9 75.0
19.4–99.4
78.6
63.2–89.7
25.0
5.4–57.2
97.1
84.7–99.9
0.63
0.09–0.99
Site 3 2/104 1 97 1 5 50.0
1.2–98.7
95.1
88.9–98.4
16.7
0.4–64.1
99.0
94.4–99.9
0.42
0.01–0.99
Site 4 9/83 4 69 5 5 44.4
13.7–78.8
93.2
84.9–97.8
44.4
13.7–78.8
93.2
84.9–97.8
0.44
0.06–0.90
Site 5 5/75 2 61 3 9 40.0
5.2–85.3
87.1
76.9–93.9
18.2
2.2–51.8
95.3
86.9–99.0
0.36
0.01–0.99

Note: 95% confidence intervals are displayed beneath point estimates. Reference standard: 2009 to 2011 anaphylaxis cases abstracted and adjudicated as part of McNeil et al study.

Abbreviations: F-score: F=(β2+1)PPVsensitivityβ2PPV+sensitivity, with β = 3; FN, false negative—NLP negative, reference standard positive; FP, false positive—NLP positive, reference standard negative; n, number of positive vaccine-related anaphylaxis cases; N, number of cases reviewed; NPV, negative predictive value; TN, true negative—NLP negative, reference standard negative; TP, true positive—NLP positive, reference standard positive; PPV, positive predictive value.