Table 3.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Criteria Sets Compared With Reference Standard: “Full” Criteriaa

CriteriaSensitivity (95% CI), %Specificity (95% CI), %NPV (95% CI), %PPV (95% CI), %P Valueb
Sensitivity vs Duke-ISCVID SensitivitySpecificity vs Duke-ISCVID Specificity
Modified Duke criteria74.9 (70.4–79.1)94.9 (90.8–97.5)65.0 (59.2–70.6)96.8 (94.1–98.4)<.001.16
2015 ESC criteria80.0 (75.7–83.8)93.9 (89.6–96.8)69.7 (63.8–75.2)96.4 (93.8–98.1)<.001>.99
2023 ESC criteria85.5 (81.6–88.8)82.1 (76.1–87.2)73.5 (67.2–79.2)90.7 (87.3–93.4).22<.001
Duke-ISCVID criteria84.2 (80.3–87.7)93.9 (89.6–96.8)74.5 (68.6–79.8)96.6 (94.1–98.2)
CriteriaSensitivity (95% CI), %Specificity (95% CI), %NPV (95% CI), %PPV (95% CI), %P Valueb
Sensitivity vs Duke-ISCVID SensitivitySpecificity vs Duke-ISCVID Specificity
Modified Duke criteria74.9 (70.4–79.1)94.9 (90.8–97.5)65.0 (59.2–70.6)96.8 (94.1–98.4)<.001.16
2015 ESC criteria80.0 (75.7–83.8)93.9 (89.6–96.8)69.7 (63.8–75.2)96.4 (93.8–98.1)<.001>.99
2023 ESC criteria85.5 (81.6–88.8)82.1 (76.1–87.2)73.5 (67.2–79.2)90.7 (87.3–93.4).22<.001
Duke-ISCVID criteria84.2 (80.3–87.7)93.9 (89.6–96.8)74.5 (68.6–79.8)96.6 (94.1–98.2)

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; ESC, European Society of Cardiology; ISCVID, International Society of Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, negative predictive value.

aDiagnostic accuracy with adjudication panel as the reference standard. “Full” criteria include histologic and microbiological results obtained from cardiac surgery. The absolute numbers for each classification-diagnosis combination are listed in Supplementary Table 1.

bP values based on McNemar test statistics [23].

Table 3.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Criteria Sets Compared With Reference Standard: “Full” Criteriaa

CriteriaSensitivity (95% CI), %Specificity (95% CI), %NPV (95% CI), %PPV (95% CI), %P Valueb
Sensitivity vs Duke-ISCVID SensitivitySpecificity vs Duke-ISCVID Specificity
Modified Duke criteria74.9 (70.4–79.1)94.9 (90.8–97.5)65.0 (59.2–70.6)96.8 (94.1–98.4)<.001.16
2015 ESC criteria80.0 (75.7–83.8)93.9 (89.6–96.8)69.7 (63.8–75.2)96.4 (93.8–98.1)<.001>.99
2023 ESC criteria85.5 (81.6–88.8)82.1 (76.1–87.2)73.5 (67.2–79.2)90.7 (87.3–93.4).22<.001
Duke-ISCVID criteria84.2 (80.3–87.7)93.9 (89.6–96.8)74.5 (68.6–79.8)96.6 (94.1–98.2)
CriteriaSensitivity (95% CI), %Specificity (95% CI), %NPV (95% CI), %PPV (95% CI), %P Valueb
Sensitivity vs Duke-ISCVID SensitivitySpecificity vs Duke-ISCVID Specificity
Modified Duke criteria74.9 (70.4–79.1)94.9 (90.8–97.5)65.0 (59.2–70.6)96.8 (94.1–98.4)<.001.16
2015 ESC criteria80.0 (75.7–83.8)93.9 (89.6–96.8)69.7 (63.8–75.2)96.4 (93.8–98.1)<.001>.99
2023 ESC criteria85.5 (81.6–88.8)82.1 (76.1–87.2)73.5 (67.2–79.2)90.7 (87.3–93.4).22<.001
Duke-ISCVID criteria84.2 (80.3–87.7)93.9 (89.6–96.8)74.5 (68.6–79.8)96.6 (94.1–98.2)

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; ESC, European Society of Cardiology; ISCVID, International Society of Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, negative predictive value.

aDiagnostic accuracy with adjudication panel as the reference standard. “Full” criteria include histologic and microbiological results obtained from cardiac surgery. The absolute numbers for each classification-diagnosis combination are listed in Supplementary Table 1.

bP values based on McNemar test statistics [23].

Close
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

View Article Abstract & Purchase Options

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Close