2013
DOI: 10.1371/annotation/b034b49e-ac17-4bd5-9ed8-42b51aca5e73
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Correction: Utility of NT-proBNP for Identifying LV Failure in Patients with Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Bronchitis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For years, NT‐proBNP has been believed to be an established risk marker for HF. Our analysis indicated that the predictive power of NRON is comparable to that of NT‐proBNP: The reported value of AUC is 0.844 for NT‐proBNP , and the value for NRON was 0.865. By comparison, the AUC value for MHRT is lower (0.702); yet, it still falls into the ‘good’ category for clinical applications according to the guide for classifying the accuracy of a diagnostic test with the traditional academic point system (0.9–1.0 excellent; 0.8–0.9 very good; 0.7–0.8 good; 0.6–0.7 sufficient; 0.5–0.6 bad; < 0.5 test not useful) .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…For years, NT‐proBNP has been believed to be an established risk marker for HF. Our analysis indicated that the predictive power of NRON is comparable to that of NT‐proBNP: The reported value of AUC is 0.844 for NT‐proBNP , and the value for NRON was 0.865. By comparison, the AUC value for MHRT is lower (0.702); yet, it still falls into the ‘good’ category for clinical applications according to the guide for classifying the accuracy of a diagnostic test with the traditional academic point system (0.9–1.0 excellent; 0.8–0.9 very good; 0.7–0.8 good; 0.6–0.7 sufficient; 0.5–0.6 bad; < 0.5 test not useful) .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 65%