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