Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Jul 27, 2015; 7(7): 116-122
Published online Jul 27, 2015. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v7.i7.116
Table 3 Statistical analysis of lymph node status prediction by computed tomography against final pathologic examination for three observers (n = 64)
Sensitivity(95%CI, P-value)Specificity(95%CI, P-value)PPV(95%CI, P-value)NPV(95%CI, P-value)FPR(95%CI, P-value)FNR(95%CI, P-value)Accuracy(95%CI, P-value)
Original radiologist54% (35%-73%, P = 0.69)66% (51%-81%, P = 0.05)52% (33%-71%, P = 0.85)68% (52%-83%, P = 0.03)34% (19%-49%, P = 0.05)46% (27%-65%, P = 0.69)61% (49%-73%, P = 0.08)
Secondary radiologist88% (76%-100%, P < 0.01)58% (42%-74%, P = 0.33)59% (44%-74%, P = 0.26)88% (75%-100%, P < 0.01)42% (26%-58%, P = 0.33)12% (0%-24%, P < 0.01)70% (59%-82%, P < 0.01)
Surgeon69% (51%-87%, P = 0.05)66% (51%-81%, P = 0.05)58% (41%-75%, P = 0.37)76% (61%-90%, P < 0.01)34% (19%-49%, P = 0.05)31% (13%-49%, P = 0.05)67% (56%-79%, P = 0.01)