TABLE 4.
Performance of the AmnioQuick Duo+test vs PAMG-1 for diagnosis of equivocal cases of prolonged PROM (n=43).a
| Performance evaluator |
AmnioQuick Duo+ | PAMG-1 |
|---|---|---|
| No. of true negatives | 14 | 14 |
| No. of true positives | 29 | 28 |
| No. of false negatives | 0 | 1 |
| No. of false positives | 0 | 0 |
| Total no. | 43 | 43 |
| Specificity, % (95% CI) | 100.0 (78.5–100.0) | 100.0 (73.2–100.0) |
| Sensitivity, % (95% CI) | 100.0 (88.3–100.0) | 96.6 (80.4–99.8) |
| NPV, % (95% CI) | 100.0 (73.2–100.0) | 93.3 (66.0–99.7) |
| PPV, % (95% CI) | 100.0 (85.4–100.0) | 100.0 (85.0–100.0) |
| Accuracy, % (95% CI) | 100.0 (89.5–100.0) | 97.7 (82.8–99.9) |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; NPV, negative predictive value; PAMG-1, placental α-microglobulin-1; PPV, positive predictive value; PROM, premature rupture of membranes.
a
For equivocal cases, the pooling test was negative. For these, AmnioQuick Duo+ and PAMG-1 performed equally well (diagnostic accuracy 100% vs 97.7%; P>0.99).