Table 3.
Diagnostic performance of mNGS, GMS staining, serum LDH and BDG for PCP
| Methods | PC group | Non-PCP group | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mNGS | ||||||
| + | 17 | 2 | 100.0% | 96.7% | 89.5% | 100.0% |
| − | 0 | 58 | (77.1–100.0) | (87.5–99.4) | (65.5–98.2) | (92.3–100.0) |
| Serum BDG | ||||||
| + | 13 | 13 | 86.7% | 56.7% | 50.0% | 89.5% |
| − | 2 | 17 | (58.4–97.7) | (37.7–74.0) | (30.4–69.6) | (65.5–98.2) |
| GMS | ||||||
| + | 1 | 0 | 5.9% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 11.1% |
| − | 16 | 2 | (0.3–30.8) | (19.8–100) | (5.5–100) | (1.9–36.1) |
| LDH [30] | ||||||
| ≥ 618 U/L | 10 | 16 | 55.6% | 71.4% | 38.5% | 83.3% |
| < 618 U/L | 8 | 40 | (31.4–77.6) | (57.6–82.3) | (20.9–59.3) | (69.2–92.0) |
GMS staining gomori methenamine silver staining, serum BDG serum (1,3)-β-D-glucan, LDH lactate dehydrogenase, serum BDG < 80 ng/L was defifined as positive, LDH < 618 U/Lwas defifined as positive, CI confifidence intervals, PPV positive predict value, NPV negative predict value