Table 3 Gold standard test to assess CT ability to detect positive LN
From: Localized Wilms’ tumor in low-middle-income countries (LMIC): how can we get better?
LN in pathology | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Positive | Negative | ||||
Lymphadenopathy in CT | Yes | Count | 2 | 10 | 12 |
% within CT | 16.6% | 83.3% | 100.0% | ||
% in positive LN | 40.0% | 22.7% | 17.8% | ||
% in total | 4.4% | 13.3% | 17.8% | ||
No | Count | 3 | 34 | 37 | |
% within CT | 8.1% | 91.9% | 100.0% | ||
% in positive LN | 60.0% | 77.2% | 82.2% | ||
% in total | 6.7% | 75.6% | 82.2% | ||
Total | Count | 5 | 44 | 49 | |
% within CT | 10.2% | 89.8% | 100.0% | ||
% in positive LN | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
% in total | 10.2% | 89.8% | 100.0% | ||
Sensitivity 40% | Specificity 77.2% | Positive predictive value 16.6% | |||
Negative predictive value 91.9% | False negative rate 60% | False positive rate 22.7% | |||