Перегляд вихідного коду сторінки A Gefitinib Check Out Dash Panel Widget

One is specificity evaluated with patients whose reference test results are (C) (hereafter ��specificity (other)��). Using this definition, patients with pneumonia of unknown aetiology were excluded to calculate specificity. The other definition is specificity evaluated with patients whose reference test results are either (C) or (D) (hereafter ��specificity (unknown and other)��). According to intrinsic meaning of the word ��specificity��, specificity (unknown and other) should be preferred rather than specificity (other). However, some researchers evaluated specificity [http://www.selleckchem.com/products/Dasatinib.html Dasatinib clinical trial] (other) rather than specificity (unknown and other) because there are many pneumococcal pneumonia patients among patients whose reference tests cannot detect any aetiology (D). We independently conducted two meta-analyses for specificity (other) and specificity (unknown and other). We used the Wilson score interval to estimate the standard error, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygenase Oxygenase] as the commonly used method (standard error?=?standard deviation/square-root of n) could not be applied for studies with specificity of 100%.[16] We used a fixed model with the confidence interval (CI) method to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity.[17, 18] A random model (DerSimonian�CLaird effects model) was used only for sensitivity analysis.[19] Heterogeneity was evaluated with (i) the chi-square distribution test with a rejection region of P?=?0.1; and (ii) I2 statistics whereby I2?[http://www.selleckchem.com/products/Gefitinib.html Gefitinib supplier] distinguished patients with pneumonia of unknown aetiology from those with pneumonia of identified non-pneumococcal aetiology, and four did not. The STAndard for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies score for the 10 articles ranged 8�C16, with an average of 13. The narrow range of the STAndard for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies score was explained by the fact that the answers for some questions by all studies were identical. For example, (item 20) adverse event performing SpUAT was highly unlikely. The number of patients in each study ranged 59�C555, with an average of 232. In all, 2315 patients were included in our analysis (Table?2).