Moving beyond sensitivity and specificity: Using likelihood ratios to help interpret diagnostic tests

Australian Prescriber

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 111-113

  Attia, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Abnormal laboratory results; Sensitivity; Specificity

Indexed keywords

BAYES THEOREM; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MEASUREMENT; POPULATION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SHORT SURVEY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

EID: 0141795452     PISSN: 03128008     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.18773/austprescr.2003.082     Document Type: Short Survey

References (7)

1. Bauman A. The epidemiology of clinical tests. Aust Prescr 1990;13:62-4.
2. Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary-artery disease. N Engl J Med 1979;300:1350-8.
3. Fagan TJ. Nomogram for Bayes theorem [letter]. N Engl J Med 1975;293:257.
4. Black ER, Bordley DR, Tape TG, Panzer RJ, editors. Diagnostic strategies for common medical problems. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 1999.
5. Guyatt G, Rennie D, editors. Users' guides to the medical literature: evidence-based clinical practice. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2002.
6. Wells PS, Anderson DR, Bormanis J, Guy F, Mitchell M, Gray L, et al. Value of assessment of pretest probability of deep-vein thrombosis in clinical management. Lancet 1997;350:1795-8.
7. Ebell MH. Evidence-based diagnosis: a handbook of clinical prediction rules. New York: Springer; 2001.