Table 3.

Duplex US test accuracy in a low- and high-prevalence population

Test resultNumber of results per 1000 patients tested (95% CI)Number of participants (studies)Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
Prevalence 10%*Prevalence 40%*
True positives 87 (73-95) 349 (292-378) 465 (7) ⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate§ 
False negatives 13 (5-27) 51 (22-108) 
True negatives 764 (646-833) 509 (431-556) 465 (7) ⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate§ 
False positives 136 (67-254) 91 (44-169) 
Inconclusive test results Not reported 
Complications arising from the diagnostic test Not reported 
Test resultNumber of results per 1000 patients tested (95% CI)Number of participants (studies)Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
Prevalence 10%*Prevalence 40%*
True positives 87 (73-95) 349 (292-378) 465 (7) ⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate§ 
False negatives 13 (5-27) 51 (22-108) 
True negatives 764 (646-833) 509 (431-556) 465 (7) ⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate§ 
False positives 136 (67-254) 91 (44-169) 
Inconclusive test results Not reported 
Complications arising from the diagnostic test Not reported 

An interactive summary of findings table is available at: https://gdt.gradepro.org/presentations/#/isof/isof_fb2275e1-b029-4dda-a58b-0e5992c809ac-1590262303875?_k=zs2fxi. Patient or population: Patients with suspected UEDVT. New test: Duplex US. Setting: Inpatient and outpatient. Pooled sensitivity: 0.87 (95% CI, 0.73-0.94). Pooled specificity: 0.85 (95% CI, 0.72-0.93)

*

Data from Constans et al.14 

Data from Kleinjan et al.18 

Not downgraded for risk of bias, though few studies had unclear information on standard reference test.

§

One study (Haire et al20 ) had a wide CI for sensitivity and specificity not overlapping with other studies. In consideration of the inconsistency and imprecision, we downgraded by 1 level.

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal