Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Volume 19, Number 12—December 2013

Letter

Evaluation of 3 Electronic Methods Used to Detect Influenza Diagnoses during 2009 Pandemic

Sunita MulpuruComments to Author , Tiffany Smith, Nadine Lawrence, Kumanan Wilson, and Alan J Forster
Author affiliations: University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (S. Mulpuru, K. Wilson, A.J. Forster); Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa (T. Smith); Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa (N. Lawrence, K. Wilson, A.J. Forster)

Main Article

Table

Performance characteristics of electronic influenza classification methods compared to criterion standard chart review, Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, October–December 2009*

Influenza classification
method No.
% (95% CI)
%
% (95% CI)
TP FP TN FN Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV PLR NLR
DAD flu diagnosis 49 12 332 5 90.7 (79.7–96.9) 96.5 (94–98.2) 80.3 98.5 26 (14.9–45.7) 0.10 (0.04–0.22)
Positive laboratory result 43 7 337 11 79.7 (66.5–89.4) 98 (95.9–99.2) 86.0 96.8 39.1 (18.6–82.5) 0.21 (0.12–0.35)
Antiviral drug prescribed 51 83 261 3 94.4 (84.6–98.8) 75.9 (71–80.3) 38.0 98.8 3.9 (3.2–4.8) 0.07 (0.02–0.22)

*TP, true positive; FP, false positive; TN, true negative: FN, false negative; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; PLR, positive likelihood ratio; NLR, negative likelihood ratio; DAD Flu Diagnosis = International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification, diagnosis code for influenza on the discharge abstract database stored in the Ottawa Hospital Data Warehouse.

Main Article

TOP