Table 5 |
|||
|
Performance of the algorithm in predicting readmission for Queensland compared to UK and US data |
|||
|
Risk score threshold |
|||
|
|
|||
|
50% |
70% |
80% |
|
|
|
|||
|
Queensland data |
|||
|
Sensitivity (95% CI) |
44.7 (42.5–46.9) |
7.8 (6.7–9.1) |
1.1 (0.1–1.7) |
|
Specificity (95% CI) |
78.1 (76.4–79.6) |
97.5 (96.8–98.1) |
99.8 (99.6–99.9) |
|
False positive rate (95% CI) |
37.5 (35.0–40.0) |
28.2 (22.3–34.6) |
14.8 (4.2–33.7) |
|
LR+ (95% CI) |
2.04 (1.86–2.23) |
3.11 (2.33–4.15) |
7.02 (2.43–20.28) |
|
LR- (95% CI) |
0.71 (0.68–0.74) |
0.95 (0.93–0.96) |
0.99 (0.99–1.00) |
|
|
|||
|
UK study[11] |
|||
|
Sensitivity |
54.3 |
17.8 |
8.1 |
|
Specificity |
72.2 |
95.0 |
98.6 |
|
False positive rate |
34.7 |
22.6 |
15.7 |
|
LR+ (95% CI) |
2.0 |
3.6 |
5.8 |
|
LR- (95% CI) |
0.6 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
|
|
|||
|
US study[14] |
|||
|
Sensitivity |
57.9 |
Not reported |
Not reported |
|
Specificity |
70.7 |
||
|
False positive rate |
34.1 |
||
|
LR+ (95% CI) |
2.0 |
||
|
LR- (95% CI) |
0.6 |
||
|
|
|||
|
Howell et al. BMC Health Services Research 2009 9:96 doi:10.1186/1472-6963-9-96 |
|||
