Chart review was used to evaluate test performance and the ability to detect clinical time zero, the point in time when a patient develops severe sepsis.Two physicians reviewed 100 positive cases and 75 negative cases.
A hospital-based deviation cohort of 3172 participants to evaluate test performance and a community-based validation cohort of 3621 to verify the findings.
In addition, we evaluated test performance when classifying IPA according to the predefined EORTC/MSG criteria (without ICU stay as a host factor) [ 34] and a previously published clinical algorithm [ 35], instead of our modified EORTC/MSG criteria.
The Screening for Impaired Glucose Tolerance Study evaluated test performance of random glucose and 1-h GCT and found that both tests showed reasonable discrimination for identifying dysglycemia, with estimates of AUC of 0.72 for random PG and 0.82 for 1-h GCT, although their definition of dysglycemia was slightly different (IGT, IFG ≥110 mg/dL, or diabetes) (21, 27).
In all studies that evaluated test-performance time, except one [ 21], US time was significantly shorter than CXR time (mean, <5 minutes versus 10 to 15 minutes).
As such, this provides the foundation for Phase 2b and 2c trials, that is, assessing whether the combined MRS-DTI measures are related to severity of disease and evaluating test accuracy performance in subjects with suspected disease.
However, the rating procedure, which is the standard way of evaluating test-retest performance with the MFNU [ 5], was chosen to make an evaluation of changes in performance both across categories and within the same category possible.
Normally when evaluating test-retest changes in performance with the MFNU a 7-category scoring system is used [ 9].
