Table 5 |
||||
|
Summary of previous studies |
||||
|
Anion Gap Studies |
||||
|
Study |
N |
Sensitivity |
Specificity |
ROC |
|
|
||||
|
Iberti et al[8] |
56 |
21% |
Not Reported |
Not Reported |
|
Levraut et al[10] |
498 |
44% |
91% |
0.79 |
|
Moviat et al[18] |
50 |
45% |
16% |
Not Reported |
|
Dinh et al[19] |
356 |
39% |
89% |
0.76 |
|
Chawla et al[15] |
285 |
15% |
94% |
0.55 |
|
Anion Gap Corrected for Albumin Studies |
||||
|
Study |
N |
Sensitivity |
Specificity |
ROC |
|
|
||||
|
Moviat et al[18] |
50 |
100% |
11% |
Not Reported |
|
Dinh et al[19] |
356 |
75% |
59% |
0.75 |
|
Chawla et al[15] |
285 |
32% |
80% |
0.57 |
|
Base Deficit Studies |
||||
|
Study |
N |
Results |
||
|
|
||||
|
Mikulaschek et al[11] |
52 |
No correlation between lactate and base deficit |
||
|
12 |
Base deficit not useful, instead misleading |
|||
|
Chawla et al[15] |
285 |
Base Deficit not useful, ROC AUC = 0.64 |
||
|
|
||||
|
ROC = Receiver operator characteristics area under the curve, AG = anion gap, ACAG = anion gap corrected for albumin, BD = Base Deficit, sensitivity and specificity for AG and ACAG are reported at threshold of 12 |
||||
|
Chawla et al. BMC Emergency Medicine 2008 8:18 doi:10.1186/1471-227X-8-18 |
||||
