Hi,
I have 187 urine cultures which were subjected to culture and microscopy
methods. Video were used to 'verify' the findings. Culture is considered
the gold method. But Microscopy is another method which may be cheaper. I
checked the videos to determine whether bacteria was growing on both the
culture and microscopy readings to ' verify' what was really happening.
My question is this...How can I show that Microscopy is superior?
Is there a special test available?
*Microscopy* *Positive* *Negative* *Culture Positive* *Video
Positive* *47* *5* *52* Video Negative 0 *2* *2* *Culture Negative* Video
Positive 18 *0* *18* *Video Negative* *5* *110* *115* *70* *117*
*187*
--
Thanks,
Jim.
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
