The (In)Validity of sensitivity and specificity
- 15 July 2000
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wiley in Statistics in Medicine
- Vol. 19 (13), 1783-1792
- https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0258(20000715)19:13<1783::aid-sim497>3.0.co;2-b
Abstract
This paper is a legacy of the first author, and after her untimely death reconstructed by the second author as a tribute to Irene Guggenmoos's contribution to biostatistics. It discusses two different views on diagnostic testing: the classical view in which sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic test are considered universal constants, and the more statistical point of view that focuses on predictive values. The differences between the two paradigms are outlined and practical examples are discussed to show that the familiar concepts of sensitivity and specificity must be handled with care and not used indiscriminately. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Impact on management of new diagnostic tests in Alzheimer's diseaseThe Lancet, 1996
- The Clinical Efficacy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in NeuroimagingAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1994
- Foundations of medical diagnosis: What actually are the parameters involved in Bayes' theorem?Statistics in Medicine, 1994
- Disease, Level of Impact, and Quality of Research MethodsInvestigative Radiology, 1992
- Do Physicans Have a Bias toward Action?Medical Decision Making, 1991
- Biases in the assessment of diagnostic testsStatistics in Medicine, 1987
- Carcinoembryonic AntigenAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1986
- Factors affecting sensitivity and specificity of exercise electrocardiographyAmerican Journal Of Medicine, 1984
- Reasoning Foundations of Medical DiagnosisScience, 1959
- Pseudodoxia PediatricaNew England Journal of Medicine, 1945