1980
DOI: 10.1016/s0031-3955(16)33930-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predictive Value and Efficiency of Laboratory Testing

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
72
1
1

Year Published

1983
1983
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 141 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
72
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the ELISA when compared with the specimen culture method were 92.45, 97.5, and 96.59%, respectively (8). The sensitivity of the ELISA in this study was higher than those reported by Kaufman et al (11,12).…”
contrasting
confidence: 62%
“…The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the ELISA when compared with the specimen culture method were 92.45, 97.5, and 96.59%, respectively (8). The sensitivity of the ELISA in this study was higher than those reported by Kaufman et al (11,12).…”
contrasting
confidence: 62%
“…The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and predictive values were calculated and expressed using a standard method. 25 The sensitivity of two different methods was compared by using McNemar's χ 2 test.…”
Section: Real-time Fret Pcrmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sensitivity and specificity of the tests were determined using the method of Galen (1980) . Association between GPAT and ELISA was evaluated using linear correlation and regression after the titers of GPAT were transformed into logarithm (log2) .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%