Cargando…

Biostatistics Series Module 7: The Statistics of Diagnostic Tests

Crucial therapeutic decisions are based on diagnostic tests. Therefore, it is important to evaluate such tests before adopting them for routine use. Although things such as blood tests, cultures, biopsies, and radiological imaging are obvious diagnostic tests, it is not to be forgotten that specific...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hazra, Avijit, Gogtay, Nithya
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5286748/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28216720
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.198047
_version_ 1782504055336075264
author Hazra, Avijit
Gogtay, Nithya
author_facet Hazra, Avijit
Gogtay, Nithya
author_sort Hazra, Avijit
collection PubMed
description Crucial therapeutic decisions are based on diagnostic tests. Therefore, it is important to evaluate such tests before adopting them for routine use. Although things such as blood tests, cultures, biopsies, and radiological imaging are obvious diagnostic tests, it is not to be forgotten that specific clinical examination procedures, scoring systems based on physiological or psychological evaluation, and ratings based on questionnaires are also diagnostic tests and therefore merit similar evaluation. In the simplest scenario, a diagnostic test will give either a positive (disease likely) or negative (disease unlikely) result. Ideally, all those with the disease should be classified by a test as positive and all those without the disease as negative. Unfortunately, practically no test gives 100% accurate results. Therefore, leaving aside the economic question, the performance of diagnostic tests is evaluated on the basis of certain indices such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Likelihood ratios combine information on specificity and sensitivity to expresses the likelihood that a given test result would occur in a subject with a disorder compared to the probability that the same result would occur in a subject without the disorder. Not all test can be categorized simply as “positive” or “negative.” Physicians are frequently exposed to test results on a numerical scale, and in such cases, judgment is required in choosing a cutoff point to distinguish normal from abnormal. Naturally, a cutoff value should provide the greatest predictive accuracy, but there is a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity here - if the cutoff is too low, it will identify most patients who have the disease (high sensitivity) but will also incorrectly identify many who do not (low specificity). A receiver operating characteristic curve plots pairs of sensitivity versus (1 − specificity) values and helps in selecting an optimum cutoff – the one lying on the “elbow” of the curve. Cohen's kappa (κ) statistic is a measure of inter-rater agreement for categorical variables. It can also be applied to assess how far two tests agree with respect to diagnostic categorization. It is generally thought to be a more robust measure than simple percent agreement calculation since kappa takes into account the agreement occurring by chance.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5286748
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52867482017-02-17 Biostatistics Series Module 7: The Statistics of Diagnostic Tests Hazra, Avijit Gogtay, Nithya Indian J Dermatol IJD® Module on Biostatistics and Research Methodology for the Dermatologist - MODULE EDITOR: SAUMYA PANDA Crucial therapeutic decisions are based on diagnostic tests. Therefore, it is important to evaluate such tests before adopting them for routine use. Although things such as blood tests, cultures, biopsies, and radiological imaging are obvious diagnostic tests, it is not to be forgotten that specific clinical examination procedures, scoring systems based on physiological or psychological evaluation, and ratings based on questionnaires are also diagnostic tests and therefore merit similar evaluation. In the simplest scenario, a diagnostic test will give either a positive (disease likely) or negative (disease unlikely) result. Ideally, all those with the disease should be classified by a test as positive and all those without the disease as negative. Unfortunately, practically no test gives 100% accurate results. Therefore, leaving aside the economic question, the performance of diagnostic tests is evaluated on the basis of certain indices such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Likelihood ratios combine information on specificity and sensitivity to expresses the likelihood that a given test result would occur in a subject with a disorder compared to the probability that the same result would occur in a subject without the disorder. Not all test can be categorized simply as “positive” or “negative.” Physicians are frequently exposed to test results on a numerical scale, and in such cases, judgment is required in choosing a cutoff point to distinguish normal from abnormal. Naturally, a cutoff value should provide the greatest predictive accuracy, but there is a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity here - if the cutoff is too low, it will identify most patients who have the disease (high sensitivity) but will also incorrectly identify many who do not (low specificity). A receiver operating characteristic curve plots pairs of sensitivity versus (1 − specificity) values and helps in selecting an optimum cutoff – the one lying on the “elbow” of the curve. Cohen's kappa (κ) statistic is a measure of inter-rater agreement for categorical variables. It can also be applied to assess how far two tests agree with respect to diagnostic categorization. It is generally thought to be a more robust measure than simple percent agreement calculation since kappa takes into account the agreement occurring by chance. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5286748/ /pubmed/28216720 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.198047 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Indian Journal of Dermatology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle IJD® Module on Biostatistics and Research Methodology for the Dermatologist - MODULE EDITOR: SAUMYA PANDA
Hazra, Avijit
Gogtay, Nithya
Biostatistics Series Module 7: The Statistics of Diagnostic Tests
title Biostatistics Series Module 7: The Statistics of Diagnostic Tests
title_full Biostatistics Series Module 7: The Statistics of Diagnostic Tests
title_fullStr Biostatistics Series Module 7: The Statistics of Diagnostic Tests
title_full_unstemmed Biostatistics Series Module 7: The Statistics of Diagnostic Tests
title_short Biostatistics Series Module 7: The Statistics of Diagnostic Tests
title_sort biostatistics series module 7: the statistics of diagnostic tests
topic IJD® Module on Biostatistics and Research Methodology for the Dermatologist - MODULE EDITOR: SAUMYA PANDA
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5286748/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28216720
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.198047
work_keys_str_mv AT hazraavijit biostatisticsseriesmodule7thestatisticsofdiagnostictests
AT gogtaynithya biostatisticsseriesmodule7thestatisticsofdiagnostictests