Skip to main content
. 2020 Nov 25;16(4):1071–1083. doi: 10.1007/s11739-020-02556-0

Table 2.

Summary of findings tables

DTA
(Mercury-in-glass or digital rectal at 38 °C as cut-off as reference device)
NMA
Device No.  of studies (no.  of patients) Estimate (95% CI) Effect per 1000 patients tested Certainty of evidence No.  of direct studies ( no. of patients) Mean difference (95% CI) Coefficient of reproducibility, median (range)
Infrared temporal TP 9 (885) Sensitivity: 0.76 (0.65, 0.84) 228 (180–252)

⨁⨁◯◯

Low

1 (434) vs. Mercury-in-glass rectal − 0.09 (− 0.42, –0.24) 0.53 (0.53, 0.53)
FN 72 (48–120)
TN 9 (1648) Specificity: 0.96 (0.92, 0.98) 672 (644–686)

⨁⨁⨁◯

Moderate

8 (2206) vs. Digital rectal − 0.09 (− 0.33,  –0.16) 1.2 (0.81,  1.5)
FP 28 (14–56)
Infrared tympanic TP 9 (1,279) Sensitivity: 0.77 (0.60, 0.88) 231 (180–264)

⨁⨁◯◯

Low

6 (840) vs. Mercury-in-glass rectal − 0.22 (− 0.49,  –0.04) 0.73 (0.56,  1.9)
FN 69 (36–120)
TN 9 (2583) Specificity: 0.98 (0.95,  0.99) 686 (665–693)

⨁⨁⨁◯

Moderate

12 (3520) vs. Digital rectal − 0.22 (− 0.43,  − 0.01) 1.1 (0.24, 1.5)
FP 14 (7–35)