Skip to main content

Table 2 Performance of hospital LM (compared to RDT, research LM and PCR) and RDT (compared to PCR)

From: Low prevalence of laboratory-confirmed malaria in clinically diagnosed adult women from the Wakiso district of Uganda

Diagnostic comparison

True+

True−

False+

False−

Sensitivity (95% CI)

Specificity (95% CI)

PPV (95% CI)

EGH LM vs. RDT

2

0a

84

0

100.0 (19.8–100)

0 (0–5.32)a

2.33 (0.403–8.94)

EGH LM vs. research LM

2

0a

14

0

100.0 (19.8–100)

0 (0–26.8)a

12.5 (2.20–39.59)

EGH LM vs. PCR

3

0a

10

0

100.0 (31.0–100)

0 (0–34.5)a

23.1 (6.16–54.0)

RDT vs. research LM

2

14

0

0

100.0 (19.8–100)

100 (73.2–100)

100 (19.8–100)

RDT vs. PCR

2

10

0

1

66.7 (12.5–98.2)

100 (65.5–100.0)

100 (19.8–100)

  1. aOnly malaria–diagnosed subjects were included in the study, hence the true estimate for this value is unknown. PPV positive predictive value