A Randomized Trial of Ways To Describe Test Accuracy: The Effect on Physicians' Post-Test Probability Estimates
- 2 August 2005
- journal article
- Published by American College of Physicians in Annals of Internal Medicine
- Vol. 143 (3), 184-189
- https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-143-3-200508020-00004
Abstract
Some people believe that likelihood ratios provide diagnostic information that is more useful than sensitivity and specificity estimates. To assess how physicians' estimates about probability of illness are affected by the presentation of a diagnostic test's value as an estimate of sensitivity and specificity versus a likelihood ratio or an inexact numerical graphic. Random assignment of vignettes with different presentation formats of diagnostic test accuracy. Auditorium at a continuing medical education conference. 183 physicians. After estimating probabilities of 6 common illnesses described in patient vignettes, physicians reviewed pertinent test results presented in 1 of 3 formats. Physicians' probability estimates of illness before and after receiving test information, and post-test probability estimates based on the Bayes theorem. Absolute percentage point differences between the physicians' estimated and the Bayes-based post-test probabilities varied from −7 to 31, from −7 to 28, and from 1 to 29 for the sensitivity and specificity, likelihood ratio, and graphical groups, respectively. Mean differences of probability estimates between the sensitivity and specificity and the likelihood ratio groups were small for all vignettes (−2 to 3 percentage points; summary mean z value across the 6 vignettes, 0.04 [95% CI, −0.14 to 0.21]). The small pool of participants (who were potentially selected) and the limited number of vignettes prevented a more detailed analysis of relationships between the interpreted strength of diagnostic evidence and estimations of illness probability. These findings suggest that presenting diagnostic test accuracy with likelihood ratios does not affect some physicians' estimates of illness probability compared with presenting diagnostic test results as sensitivity and specificity.Keywords
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Test Research versus Diagnostic ResearchClinical Chemistry, 2004
- Spectrum bias: a quantitative and graphical analysis of the variability of medical diagnostic test performanceStatistics in Medicine, 2003
- Diagnostic parameters of CK–MB and myoglobin related to chest pain durationCJEM, 2002
- Communicating Statistical InformationScience, 2000
- Combined evidence from multiple outcomes in a clinical trial.Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2000
- Sensitivity and Specificity of a Rapid Whole-Blood Assay for D-Dimer in the Diagnosis of Pulmonary EmbolismAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1998
- Value of the electrocardiogram in identifying heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunctionBMJ, 1996
- Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working GroupJAMA, 1994
- Can moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease be diagnosed by historical and physical findings alone?American Journal Of Medicine, 1993
- Reasoning Foundations of Medical DiagnosisScience, 1959