Table 12.
Comparison of performance of IOTA SR in our study and in previous studies
| Authors | Country | Year | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | Diagnostic Accuracy (%) | Inconclusive (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Timmerman[6] | Multiple, EU | 2008 | 95 | 91 | 80.9 | 97.6 | 91.9 | 23.9 |
| Timmerman[7] | Multiple, EU | 2010 | 92 | 96 | 87.4 | 97.4 | 94.8 | 22.5 |
| Sayasneh[2] | Multiple, UK | 2013 | 87 | 98 | 93.8 | 95.7 | 95.3 | 16.1 |
| Alcazar[26] | 2 centers, Spain | 2013 | 88 | 97 | 95.3 | 98.3 | 96.3 | 20.6 |
| Nunes[27] | Single center, UK | 2014 | 96 | 89 | 87.1 | 96.7 | 91.9 | 21.8 |
| Garg[15] | Single center, India | 2017 | 91.7 | 84.8 | 68.8 | 96.6 | 88.9 | 10 |
| Shetty[16] | Single center, India | 2019 | 92.8 | 92.9 | 70.2 | 98.6 | 91.4 | 10.7 |
| Grover et al, [present study] | Single center, India | 2019-20 | 87.5 | 79.2 | 89.4 | 76 | 84.7 | 28 |