Search results
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- {{r|Sensitivity and specificity}}497 bytes (62 words) - 19:55, 11 January 2010
- {{r|Sensitivity and specificity}}499 bytes (64 words) - 20:32, 11 January 2010
- The likelihood ratio is an alternative to [[sensitivity and specificity]] for the numeric interpretation of [[diagnostic test]]s. In a [[randomized Likelihood ratios are related to [[sensitivity and specificity]].5 KB (738 words) - 20:35, 15 August 2012
- {{r|Sensitivity and specificity}}643 bytes (79 words) - 18:05, 11 January 2010
- ! !![[Sensitivity and specificity|Sensitivity]]!![[Sensitivity and specificity|Specificity]]!![[Sensitivity8 KB (1,026 words) - 12:49, 10 February 2011
- ...ction with a pooled [[sensitivity and specificity|sensitivity]] of 0.97, [[sensitivity and specificity|specificity]] of 0.96."<ref name="pmid17636770">{{cite journal |author=Abba3 KB (452 words) - 21:58, 22 February 2009
- * [[Sensitivity and specificity|Sensitivity]]: 60%<ref name="pmid2187961"/>, 64%<ref name="pmid8309266">{{c * [[Sensitivity and specificity|Specificity]]: 70%<ref name="pmid2187961"/>6 KB (890 words) - 16:47, 13 May 2023
- ! [[Sensitivity and specificity|Sensitivity]]!! [[Sensitivity and specificity|Specificity]]3 KB (418 words) - 13:21, 15 February 2009
- * [[Sensitivity and specificity| sensitivity]] = 92% * [[Sensitivity and specificity| specificity]] is uncertain and ranges from 88 to 96%8 KB (1,056 words) - 13:29, 10 February 2023
- ====Sensitivity and specificity====4 KB (610 words) - 23:42, 24 May 2012
- {{r|Sensitivity and specificity}}881 bytes (140 words) - 23:40, 24 April 2010
- On [[physical examination]], the most [[sensitivity and specificity|sensitive]] findings are:<ref name="pmid20229121">{{cite journal| author=Ch1 KB (145 words) - 09:18, 18 August 2011
- ...theterization reported a [[Sensitivity and specificity|sensitivity]] and [[Sensitivity and specificity|specificity]] of 88% and 56%, respectively. <ref name="pmid23227919">{{cite4 KB (597 words) - 08:16, 6 September 2013
- ...d a [[sensitivity and specificity|negative predictive value]] of 74% and [[sensitivity and specificity|negative predictive value]] of 3% ([http://medinformatics.uthscsa.edu/calcu9 KB (1,280 words) - 11:44, 2 February 2023
- * [[Sensitivity and specificity|Sensitivity]] 24% * [[Sensitivity and specificity|Specificity]] 55%4 KB (561 words) - 17:16, 13 June 2010
- ** [[Sensitivity and specificity|Sensitivity]] 83% ** [[Sensitivity and specificity|Specificity]] 96%6 KB (818 words) - 12:51, 8 September 2020
- ...d on [[physical examination]] by inability to full extend the elbow. The [[sensitivity and specificity]] is 92% and 61%.<ref name="pmid18324503">{{cite journal |author=Lamprakis1 KB (189 words) - 21:49, 25 February 2010
- The digiti quinti signa may be more [[sensitivity and specificity|sensitive]] than the pronator drift test.<ref name="pmid20799429">{{cite jo1 KB (167 words) - 09:01, 19 November 2011
- Sigmoidoscopy has a [[sensitivity and specificity|sensitivity]] of 31% in detecting pseudomembranes as compared to [[colonoso2 KB (305 words) - 07:42, 19 August 2011
- * [[Sensitivity and specificity|Sensitivity]] * [[Sensitivity and specificity|Specificity]]9 KB (1,188 words) - 11:45, 2 February 2023