[Skip to Content]
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
Purchase Options:
[Skip to Content Landing]
Citations 0
October 4, 2000

Incorrect Negative Predictive Value

JAMA. 2000;284(13):1653. doi:10.1001/jama.284.13.1653

In the Original Contribution entitled "The Role of Clinical Suspicion in Evaluating a New Diagnostic Test for Active Tuberculosis: Results of a Multicenter Prospective Trial" published in the February 2, 2000, issue of THE JOURNAL (2000;283:639-645), there were errors in the reporting of 1 negative predictive value. On page 639, in the abstract, under "Results," the last sentence should read "Corresponding negative predictive values were 99%, 91%, and 55% (E-MTD test) vs 96%, 71%, and 37% (AFB smear)." On page 643, the second to last sentence in the first paragraph under the heading "Estimating Clinical Utility" should read "However, the expected NPV of the AFB smear was only 37%, compared with 55% for the E-MTD." On page 644, in Figure 2, the Enhanced Mycobacterium tuberculosis Direct Test bar for negative predictive value of high suspicion for tuberculosis (87) should be 55% instead of 91%. Also on page 644, in column 3, the last sentence in the first paragraph should read "The high and consistent specificity of the E-MTD also appeared to be clinically valuable in excluding disease among patients with intermediate CSTB estimates, offering an intermediate NPV of 91%, compared with 71% for AFB smear."