Vesicoureteric reflux - An unusuAl Genetic AssociA tion of common condition
Anil Bagul, G. Koffman, Caroline Platt, J. P. Dudley, John C. Hartley
Abstract
Anil Bagul, G. Koffman, Caroline Platt, J. P. Dudley, John C. Hartley
Abstract
62 Of the 62 microscopy interpretations 57 (91.9%) showed concordance with the microbiology culture results. Sensitivity of 15/17 (88.2%), specificity 42/45 (93.3%), positive predictive value 15/18 (83.3%) and negative predictive values of 42/44 (95.5%) were obtained. Video evidence is available showing bacteria in 2 of the samples deemed “Microscopy Positive” but “Culture Negative.” If these samples, as they ought to, returned as “Culture Positive” then microscopy would have attained concordance 59 (95.2%), sensitivity 17/19 (89.5%), specificity 42/43 (97.7%), positive predictive value 17/18 (94.4%), negative predictive value 42/44 (95.5%). Conclusions Phase contrast microscopy afforded immediate interpretation in 62/65 (95.4%) of samples studied. Microscopy interpretation showed high concordance rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values when compared to the accepted gold standard i.e., microbiological culture even with the apparent error in the culture process.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
62 Of the 62 microscopy interpretations 57 (91.9%) showed concordance with the microbiology culture results. Sensitivity of 15/17 (88.2%), specificity 42/45 (93.3%), positive predictive value 15/18 (83.3%) and negative predictive values of 42/44 (95.5%) were obtained. Video evidence is available showing bacteria in 2 of the samples deemed “Microscopy Positive” but “Culture Negative.” If these samples, as they ought to, returned as “Culture Positive” then microscopy would have attained concordance 59 (95.2%), sensitivity 17/19 (89.5%), specificity 42/43 (97.7%), positive predictive value 17/18 (94.4%), negative predictive value 42/44 (95.5%). Conclusions Phase contrast microscopy afforded immediate interpretation in 62/65 (95.4%) of samples studied. Microscopy interpretation showed high concordance rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values when compared to the accepted gold standard i.e., microbiological culture even with the apparent error in the culture process.
Key concepts: Concordance, Predictive value, Positive predicative value, Gold standard (test), Microscopy, Medicine, Internal medicine, Pathology