Volume 19, Number 12—December 2013
Letter
Evaluation of 3 Electronic Methods Used to Detect Influenza Diagnoses during 2009 Pandemic
Table
Performance characteristics of electronic influenza classification methods compared to criterion standard chart review, Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, October–December 2009*
Influenza classification method | No. |
% (95% CI) |
% |
% (95% CI) |
|||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TP | FP | TN | FN | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | PLR | NLR | ||||
DAD flu diagnosis | 49 | 12 | 332 | 5 | 90.7 (79.7–96.9) | 96.5 (94–98.2) | 80.3 | 98.5 | 26 (14.9–45.7) | 0.10 (0.04–0.22) | |||
Positive laboratory result | 43 | 7 | 337 | 11 | 79.7 (66.5–89.4) | 98 (95.9–99.2) | 86.0 | 96.8 | 39.1 (18.6–82.5) | 0.21 (0.12–0.35) | |||
Antiviral drug prescribed | 51 | 83 | 261 | 3 | 94.4 (84.6–98.8) | 75.9 (71–80.3) | 38.0 | 98.8 | 3.9 (3.2–4.8) | 0.07 (0.02–0.22) |
*TP, true positive; FP, false positive; TN, true negative: FN, false negative; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; PLR, positive likelihood ratio; NLR, negative likelihood ratio; DAD Flu Diagnosis = International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification, diagnosis code for influenza on the discharge abstract database stored in the Ottawa Hospital Data Warehouse.