Results of validation of case definition algorithms for urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse
| Case definition algorithm; disorder | Chart review | Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) | PPV (95% CI) | NPV (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cases | Noncases | Total | |||||
| Urinary incontinence | |||||||
| Cases | 140 | 205 | 345 | 81.9 (75.1–87.2) | 71.9 (68.4–75.1) | 40.6 (35.4–46.0) | 94.4 (92.1–96.1) |
| Noncases | 31 | 524 | 555 | ||||
| Total | 171 | 729 | 900 | ||||
| Fecal incontinence | |||||||
| Cases | 30 | 7 | 37 | 61.2 (46.2–74.5) | 99.2 (98.2–99.6) | 81.1 (64.3–91.4) | 97.8 (96.5–98.6) |
| Noncases | 19 | 844 | 863 | ||||
| Total | 49 | 851 | 900 | ||||
| Pelvic organ prolapse | |||||||
| Cases | 43 | 10 | 53 | 51.8 (40.6–62.8) | 98.8 (97.7–99.4) | 81.1 (67.6–90.1) | 95.3 (93.6–96.6) |
| Noncases | 40 | 807 | 847 | ||||
| Total | 83 | 817 | 900 | ||||
Note: CI = confidence interval, NPV = negative predictive value, PPV = positive predictive value.