Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Table 4 Diagnostic accuracy of HIA01 screening tool sub-tests compared if normative thresholds applieda

From: The performance of the World Rugby Head Injury Assessment Screening Tool: a diagnostic accuracy study

Sub-testTPFNFPTNSensitivity (%, 95% CI)Specificity (%, 95% CI)AUROC (95% CI)
Maddocks questions40408166548.9 (6.5–12.0)97.6 (96.2–98.6)0.5 (0.5–0.6)
Immediate memory2242696614.9 (3.1–7.3)98.7 (97.5–99.4)0.5 (0.5–0.5)
Digits backwards15229610656433.9 (29.6–38.5)84. (81.2–86.9)0.6 (0.6–0.6)
Tandem gait844026681.79 (0.78–3.49)99.7 (98.9–100.0)0.5 (0.5–0.5)
Symptoms2491997159955.6 (50.8–60.2)89.4 (86.8–91.6)0.7 (0.7–0.8)
Delayed recall893593463619.9 (16.3–23.9)94.9 (93.0–96.5)0.6 (0.5–0.6)
Clinical signsb1892594362742.2 (37.6–46.9)93.6 (91.5–95.3)0.7 (0.7–0.7)
  1. TP true positive, FN false negative, FP false positive, TN true negative, AUROC area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic
  2. aNormative threshold = off-field screening sub-test performance worse than the normative threshold detailed in Table 1.
  3. bSub-test does not have normative or baseline threshold