Table 5 Summary of previous studies
Anion Gap Studies | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Study | N | Sensitivity | Specificity | ROC |
Iberti et al[8] | 56 | 21% | Not Reported | Not Reported |
Levraut et al[10] | 498 | 44% | 91% | 0.79 |
Moviat et al[18] | 50 | 45% | 16% | Not Reported |
Dinh et al[19] | 356 | 39% | 89% | 0.76 |
Chawla et al[15] | 285 | 15% | 94% | 0.55 |
Anion Gap Corrected for Albumin Studies | ||||
Study | N | Sensitivity | Specificity | ROC |
Moviat et al[18] | 50 | 100% | 11% | Not Reported |
Dinh et al[19] | 356 | 75% | 59% | 0.75 |
Chawla et al[15] | 285 | 32% | 80% | 0.57 |
Base Deficit Studies | ||||
Study | N | Results | ||
Mikulaschek et al[11] | 52 | No correlation between lactate and base deficit | ||
12 | Base deficit not useful, instead misleading | |||
Chawla et al[15] | 285 | Base Deficit not useful, ROC AUC = 0.64 | ||