Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 19, Number 12—December 2013

Evaluation of 3 Electronic Methods Used to Detect Influenza Diagnoses during 2009 Pandemic

Sunita MulpuruComments to Author , Tiffany Smith, Nadine Lawrence, Kumanan Wilson, and Alan J Forster
Author affiliations: University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (S. Mulpuru, K. Wilson, A.J. Forster); Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa (T. Smith); Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa (N. Lawrence, K. Wilson, A.J. Forster)

Main Article


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.

Main Article

Page created: November 20, 2013
Page updated: November 20, 2013
Page reviewed: November 20, 2013
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.