For all biomarkers sensitivity was considerably lower than specificity.
The specificity for 'any disorder' was the lowest, regardless of the level of dichotomisation and considerably lower than the specificity for the other individual categories.
However, some studies show a considerably lower sensitivity and specificity compared to traditional detecting methods [ 11, 15].
Two publications showed considerably lower sensitivity and specificity [ 20, 6], and one reported higher values [ 8] (Table 2).
As a result this technique has been established as a powerful complement to the classic tools of protein chemistry, such as western-blotting or enzyme-linked immunosorbent (ELISA) assays, which are of considerably lower throughput and specificity.
Nevertheless, these differences alone can not explain the discrepant results, since analyses in male and HIV-infected subgroups of both studies still result in a considerably lower sensitivity and specificity of the LAM-ELISA in our study.
The sensitivity in detecting resistance to KAN were considerably lower (27%), whereas the specificity was excellent (97%).
However, when Williams et al. investigated the single item screener in comparison to SCID interviews specificity was considerably lower (66%).
In Afrikaners, total and LDL-C concentrations were significantly higher in children with a detected mutation compared to those without a mutation, 26 but the sensitivity and specificity are considerably lower at young ages.
Conversely, in the Canadian study [ 31], while the sensitivity of the BJMHS was similar to studies in the United States at approximately 65% in all cases, the specificity was considerably lower (i.e. 59%, 95% CI [47-69 [47-69ompared to 76%, 95% CI [69-82%] asd 84%, 95% compared8%] in toe original American studies [ 20, 42]. Few studies compared the performance of tools to detect various disorders.
