Sorry, incorrect , Skid,
Whitebeard found it and posted it.
Credit where credit is due.:)
Printable View
And through the 200MA she goes.
I wonder if it will hold by end of day.
The price goes up so some people think the company is leaking information ( shall we assume good info ). So if the price goes down do we assume the info leaked is bad. If the price stays steady can we assume that this company is leak proof.
Well, I have read the paper and I do not know what to think of it!
I am totally unsure whether it is useful in any other way than it mentions CxBladder Detect five times (but CxBladder Triage is not mentioned once!).
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
PS Need to lie down until my head stops hurting :closed eyes:.
The problem:
Report, page 15, paragraph 1:
What I take this to mean is using the setting for a test-negative rate of 0.4 for the macro-hematuria population, when we applied it to the [statistically small] micro-hematuria population we got a a test-negative rate of 0.8.Quote:
While the G + P INDEX was developed using data from patients with macrohematuria, its robustness was tested in a further 40 samples from patients with microhematuria (Hfreq = 0 for all microhematuria patients). A higher test-negative rate was expected in a microhematuria population as the incidence of UC is lower in this population, and using a test-negative rate of 0.4, 32 (80%) patients tested negative and would be correctly triaged out, therefore not requiring a full urological work-up for the determination of UC.
WHAT?
Report, page 15, paragraph 4:
The do not mention the specificity of 0.45 that goes with the 0.95 sensitivity and you need to carry that across as well. So I would expect a test-negative rate (triaged out) of about 45%, given no UC in the group.Quote:
It is acknowledged that the population used to derive the G INDEX, P INDEX and G + P INDEX in this instance consisted of patients with macrohematuria. Therefore, the derived NPV values are only applicable to the macrohematuria population. The sensitivity of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.86–0.98) may, however, be applied across populations. Presuming that patients with and without UC are similarly distributed amongst the micro- and macrohematuria patient populations as depicted in [5,23-25], and that expected UC prevalence is 4% in the
microhematuria population, a higher NPV and test-negative rate can be expected in the target microhematuria population.
This is a statistical dis-connect!
And they just say isn't it great.
No explanation!
Anybody got any sensible ideas?
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
Good bit of revision, updated in March
nhc.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/.../haematuria-t2.docx
Baffling isnt it!
Im going to strip this out and substitute another word for macrohaematuria like BIG and another one for microhaematuria like tiny. The M&Ms are too similar and easily discombobulated.
I suspect an inadvertent "i" replacing an "a "somewhere or vice versa.
May take a while, Ill get back if I find anything.:)
Yes, well done CJ. There has always been this suspicion that NZ Health could be a tad slow out if the gates perhaps especially when Darling indicated that PEB was first cab off the rank and it was an unknown process for everybody. Delays in results of clinical trials publication hasnt helped either.
Good to see some progress here along with everything else.
Now where is that Breen report?