Table 4 |
|||||
|
Comparison of effectiveness algorithm versus effectiveness gold standard for biologic and nonbiologic disease-modifying agent in rheumatic disease** treatments |
|||||
|
Effectiveness gold standard*** |
|||||
|
Met effectiveness algorithm* |
Yes |
No |
Total |
PPV (95% CI) |
NPV (95% CI) |
|
|
|||||
|
Yes |
60 |
19 |
79 (26%) |
76% (71 to 81) |
|
|
No |
23 |
203 |
226 (74%) |
90% (88 to 92) |
|
|
Total |
83 (27%) |
222 (73%) |
305 (100%) |
||
|
Se = 72% (95% CI = 67 to 77) |
Sp = 91% (95% CI = 89 to 93) |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
CI: confidence Interval; DMARD: disease-modifying; NPV: negative predictive value; PPV: positive predictive value; Se: sensitivity; Sp: specificity. *The components of the effectiveness algorithm are given in Table 1. **DMARDs include hydroxychloroquine, leflunomide and sulfasalazine. ***Defined as DAS28 ≤ 3.2 or DAS28 improvement by > 1.2 units and high adherence (for example, ≥ 80%) to the biologic and/or DMARD started on the index date. |
|||||
|
Curtis et al. Arthritis Research & Therapy 2011 13:R155 doi:10.1186/ar3471 |
|||||