Skip to main content

Table 3 Diagnostic accuracy of DOT (cutpoint 0.297), DOT (cutpoint – 0.547) and Dawson scores on full validation cohort and cohort excluding retinal events. Confidence intervals (95 %) are shown where available

From: Diagnosis of TIA (DOT) score – design and validation of a new clinical diagnostic tool for transient ischaemic attack

Full validation cohort (n = 525)
  DOT 0.297 DOT -0.547 Dawson
 True positive 192 210 197
 False positive 41 70 142
 True negative 248 219 147
 False negative 44 26 39
 Sensitivity 81 % (76 %–86 %) 89 % (84 %–93 %) 83 % (78 %–88 %)
 Specificity 86 % (81 %–90 %) 76 % (70 %–81 %) 51 % (45 %–57 %)
 Positive predictive value 82 % (77 %–87 %) 75 % (70 %–80 %) 58 % (53 %–63 %)
 Negative predictive value 85 % (80 %–89 %) 89 % (85 %–93 %) 79 % (72 %–85 %)
 Positive likelihood ratio 5.73 (4.29–7.66) 3.67 (2.98–4.53) 1.70 (1.49–1.94)
 Negative likelihood ratio 0.22 (0.17–0.28) 0.15 (0.10–0.21) 0.32 (0.24–0.44)
Validation cohort excluding retinal events (n = 485)
  DOT 0.297 DOT -0.547 Dawson
 True positive 156 172 175
 False positive 41 70 142
 True negative 248 219 147
 False negative 40 24 21
 Sensitivity 80 % (73 %–85 %) 88 % (82 %–92 %) 89 % (84 %–93 %)
 Specificity 86 % (81 %–90 %) 76 % (70 %–81 %) 51 % (45 %–57 %)
 Positive predictive value 79 % (73 %–85 %) 71 % (65 %–77 %) 55 % (50 %–61 %)
 Negative predictive value 86 % (82 %–90 %) 90 % (86 %–94 %) 88 % (82 %–92 %)
 Positive likelihood ratio 5.61 (4.19–7.51) 3.62 (2.94–4.47) 1.82 (1.60–2.06)
 Negative likelihood ratio 0.24 (0.18–0.31) 0.16 (0.11–0.24) 0.21 (0.14–0.32)