The clinical judgement of the general practitioner
| First author, year | Type | AUC | Sensitivity, % | Specificity, % | PPV, % | NPV, % |
| Performance of decision | ||||||
| Bruins Slot et al,11 2011 | Derivation | 0.66 (0.58–0.73) | 97.0 | 9.5 | 23.4 | 91.7 |
| Aerts et al,14 2017 | Sensitivity analysis | 0.79 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Performance of decision rule versus clinical judgement | ||||||
| Grijseels et al,12 1996 | Validation | 0.70 | 91.4 | 36.7 | 56.9 | 82.4 |
| GP’s aided clinical judgement | N/A | 97.6 | 21.0 | 53.1 | 90.7 | |
| Bruins Slot et al,11 2011 | Derivation | 0.66 (0.58–0.73) | 97.0 | 9.5 | 23.4 | 91.7 |
| GP’s unaided clinical judgement | 0.75 (0.68–0.82) | 93.9 | 19.4 | 24.9 | 91.8 | |
AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; GP, general practitioner; N/A, not available; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value.