Table 3 |
|||||
|
Comparison of effectiveness algorithm versus effectiveness gold standard for biologic users |
|||||
|
Effectiveness gold standard* |
|||||
|
Met effectiveness algorithm** |
Yes |
No |
Total |
PPV (95% CI) |
NPV (95% CI) |
|
|
|||||
|
Yes |
42 |
14 |
56 (28%) |
75% (62 to 86) |
|
|
No |
14 |
127 |
141 (72%) |
90% (84 to 94) |
|
|
Total |
56 (28%) |
141 (72%) |
197 (100%) |
||
|
Se 75% (95% CI = 62 to 86) |
Sp 90% (95% CI = 84 to 94) |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
CI: confidence interval; NPV: negative predictive value; PPV: positive predictive value; Se: sensitivity; Sp: specificity. *DAS28 ≤ 3.2 or DAS28 improvement by > 1.2 units and high adherence (for example, ≥ 80%) to the biologic started on the index date. **The components of the effectiveness algorithm are shown in Table 1. |
|||||
|
Curtis et al. Arthritis Research & Therapy 2011 13:R155 doi:10.1186/ar3471 |
|||||
