Informe final de master
Amparo Ramírez
Datos Generales
Número de pacientes : 150
Edad media : 34.25(18 - 46)
Porcentaje de primíparas : 52.9%
Diagnóstico RCIU
Método1: Una ecografía tardía en el tercer trimestre
Método2: Dos ecografías en el tercer trimestre
Diagnóstico de RCIU con el Método1: 15 (9.68%)
Diagnóstico de RCIU con el Método2: 18 (11.61%)
Test de Chi Cuadrado: p= 0.713
Sumario metodo 1
## Confusion Matrix and Statistics
##
##
## fgr normal
## fgr 10 2
## normal 14 129
##
## Accuracy : 0.8968
## 95% CI : (0.8378, 0.9398)
## No Information Rate : 0.8452
## P-Value [Acc > NIR] : 0.04270
##
## Kappa : 0.5044
##
## Mcnemar's Test P-Value : 0.00596
##
## Sensitivity : 0.41667
## Specificity : 0.98473
## Pos Pred Value : 0.83333
## Neg Pred Value : 0.90210
## Prevalence : 0.15484
## Detection Rate : 0.06452
## Detection Prevalence : 0.07742
## Balanced Accuracy : 0.70070
##
## 'Positive' Class : fgr
## ## [1] "Likelihood ratio +: 20.5"## [1] "Likelihood ratio -: 0.602040816326531"Sumario método 2
## Confusion Matrix and Statistics
##
##
## fgr normal
## fgr 12 6
## normal 12 125
##
## Accuracy : 0.8839
## 95% CI : (0.8227, 0.9297)
## No Information Rate : 0.8452
## P-Value [Acc > NIR] : 0.1081
##
## Kappa : 0.5058
##
## Mcnemar's Test P-Value : 0.2386
##
## Sensitivity : 0.50000
## Specificity : 0.95420
## Pos Pred Value : 0.66667
## Neg Pred Value : 0.91241
## Prevalence : 0.15484
## Detection Rate : 0.07742
## Detection Prevalence : 0.11613
## Balanced Accuracy : 0.72710
##
## 'Positive' Class : fgr
## ## [1] "Likelihood ratio +: 9.99999999999999"## [1] "Likelihood ratio -: 0.526315789473684"#Comparación de sensibilidades de los dos test
| t10 | t10 | t01 | t00 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| gold= FGR | 10 | 2 | 0 | 12 |
| gold = NORMAL | 2 | 4 | 0 | 125 |
Software de la Universidad de Granada
Aplicamos el programa compbdt de la Universidad de Granada a nuestra tabla de frecuencias y obtenemos los siguientes resultados:
##
## PREVALENCE OF THE DISEASE
##
## Estimated prevalence of the disease is 15.484 % and its standard error is 0.029
##
## 95 % confidence interval for the prevalence of the disease is ( 10.571 % ; 21.945 %)
##
##
## COMPARISON OF THE ACCURACIES (SENSITIVITIES AND SPECIFICITIES)
##
## Estimated sensitivity of Test 1 is 50 % and its standard error is 0.102
##
## 95 % confidence interval for the sensitivity of Test 1 is ( 31.427 % ; 68.573 %)
##
## Estimated sensitivity of Test 2 is 41.667 % and its standard error is 0.101
##
## 95 % confidence interval for the sensitivity of Test 1 is ( 24.384 % ; 61.082 %)
##
## Estimated specificity of Test 1 is 95.42 % and its standard error is 0.018
##
## 95 % confidence interval for the specificity of Test 1 is ( 90.461 % ; 97.978 %)
##
## Estimated specificity of Test 2 is 98.473 % and its standard error is 0.011
##
## 95 % confidence interval for the specificity of Test 1 is ( 94.704 % ; 99.68 %)
##
##
## Wald test statistic for the global hypothesis test H0: (Se1 = Se2 and Sp1 = Sp2) is 6.308
##
## Global p-value is 0.043
##
## Applying the global Wald test (to an alpha error of 5 %), we reject the hypothesis H0: (Se1 = Se2 and Sp1 = Sp2)
##
## Estimated power (to an alpha error of 5 %) is 62.41 %
##
## Investigation of the causes of significance:
##
## McNemar test statistic (with cc) for H0: Se1 = Se2 is 0.5 and the two-sided p-value is 0.617
##
## McNemar test statistic (with cc) for H0: Sp1 = Sp2 is 2.25 and the two-sided p-value is 0.024
##
## Applying the Holm method (to an alpha error of 5 %), we do not reject the hypothesis H0: Se1 = Se2 and we reject the hypothesis H0: Sp1 = Sp2
##
## Specificity of Test 2 is significantly greater than specificity of Test 1
##
## 95 % confidence interval for the difference Sp2 - Sp1 is ( -0.566 % ; 6.581 %)
##
##
##
## COMPARISON OF THE LIKELIHOOD RATIOS
##
## Estimated positive LR of Test 1 is 10.917 and its standard error is 4.891
##
## 95 % confidence interval for the positive LR of Test 1 is ( 4.848 ; 28.232 )
##
## Estimated positive LR of Test 2 is 27.292 and its standard error is 20.253
##
## 95 % confidence interval for the positive LR of Test 1 is ( 8.187 ; -349.362 )
##
## Estimated negative LR of Test 1 is 0.524 and its standard error is 0.107
##
## 95 % confidence interval for the negative LR of Test 1 is ( 0.332 ; 0.725 )
##
## Estimated negative LR of Test 2 is 0.592 and its standard error is 0.102
##
## 95 % confidence interval for the negative LR of Test 2 is ( 0.396 ; 0.771 )
##
##
## Test statistic for the global hypothesis test H0: (PLR1 = PLR2 and NLR1 = NLR2) is 4.873
##
## Global p-value is 0.087
##
## Applying the global hypothesis test (to an alpha error of 5 %), we do not reject the hypothesis H0: (PLR1 = PLR2 and NLR1 = NLR2)
##
## Estimated probability of committing a type II error (to an alpha error of 5 %) is 19.92 %
##
##
##
## COMPARISON OF THE PREDICTIVE VALUES
##
## Estimated positive PV of Test 1 is 66.667 % and its standard error is 0.111
##
## 95 % confidence interval for the positive PV of Test 1 is ( 43.962 % ; 83.934 %)
##
## Estimated positive PV of Test 2 is 83.333 % and its standard error is 0.108
##
## 95 % confidence interval for the positive PV of Test 2 is ( 55.783 % ; 95.889 %)
##
## Estimated negative PV of Test 1 is 91.241 % and its standard error is 0.024
##
## 95 % confidence interval for the negative PV of Test 1 is ( 85.395 % ; 95 %)
##
## Estimated negative PV of Test 2 is 90.21 % and its standard error is 0.025
##
## 95 % confidence interval for the negative PV of Test 2 is ( 84.314 % ; 94.155 %)
##
##
## Wald test statistic for the global hypothesis test H0: (PPV1 = PPV2 and NPV1 = NPV2) is 7.35
##
## Global p-value is 0.025
##
## Applying the global hypothesis test (to an alpha error of 5 %), we reject the hypothesis H0: (PPV1 = PPV2 and NPV1 = NPV2)
##
## Estimated power (to an alpha error of 5 %) is 20.35 %
##
## Investigation of the causes of significance:
##
## Weighted generalized score statistic for H0: PPV1 = PPV2 is 2.616 and the two-sided p-value is 0.106
##
## Weighted generalized score statistic for H0: NPV1 = NPV2 is 1.24 and the two-sided p-value is 0.266