Assessing likelihood ratio of clinical symptoms: Handling vagueness

Homeopathy

Volumn 92, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 182-186

  Rutten, A L B ^a   Stolper, C F ^b   Lugten, R F G ^b   Barthels, R W J M ^b  

^a 4813 NN Breda   (Netherlands)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Ambiguity; Bayesian analysis; Clinical symptoms; Confounding; Expectation bias; Likelihood ratio; Sorites paradox; Vagueness

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL FEATURE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; HOMEOPATHY; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; SYMPTOMATOLOGY; THEORY;

EID: 0142089770     PISSN: 14754916     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2003.08.013     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Stolper CF, Rutten ALB, Lugten RFG, Barthels RJWM. Improving homeopathic prescribing by applying epidemiological techniques: the role of likelihood ratio. Homeopathy 2002; 91: 230-238.
2. Rutten ALB, Stolper CF, Lugten RFG, Barthels RWJM. Is assessment of likelihood ratio of homeopathic symptoms possible? A pilot study. Homeopathy 2003; 92: 213-216.
3. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vagueness. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness. 2002.
4. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Sorites paradox. http:// plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox. 2002.
5. Graff D. An anti-epistemicist consequence of margin for error semantics for knowledge. Philos Phenomenol Res 2000; 64: 127-142.
6. Gavin WJ. William James and the Reinstatement of the Vague. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992.
7. Bouter LM, Dongen MCJM van. 5.3.3 Confounding. Epidemiologisch onderzoek. Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum, 1995, pp 200-217.
8. Windolf J. What is the practical value of scoring systems? Zentralbl Chir 1999; 124: 687-691.
9. Fathi-Torbaghan M, Meyer D. MEDUSA: a fuzzy expert system for medical diagnosis of acute abdominal pain. Methods Inf Med 1994; 33: 522-529.
10. Innocent PR, John RI, Garibaldi JM. The fuzzy medical group in the centre for computational intelligence. Artif Intell Med 2001; 21: 163-170.
11. Weller SC, Mann NC. Assessing rater performance without a 'gold standard' using consensus theory. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 71-79.
12. Simel DL, Samba PS, Matchar DB. Likelihood ratios for continuous test results-making the clinicians' job easier or harder? J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 85-93.
13. Jongh TOH de, Eekhof JAH, Berg H van den. Handelen in onzekerheid. Medisch Contact 2002; 57: 941-945.
14. Greenhalgh T. Intuition, evidence-uneasy bedfellows? Br J Gen Pract 2002; 52: 395-400.
15. Horton MD, Counter SF, Florence MG, Hart MJ. A prospective trial of computed tomography and ultrasonography for diagnosing appendicitis in the atypical patient. Am J Surg 2000; 179: 379-381.
16. Zielke A, Sitter H, Rampp T, Bohrer T, Rothmund M. Clinical decision-making, ultrasonography, and scores for evaluation of suspected acute appendicitis. World J Surg 2001; 25: 578-584.
17. Garcia-Aguayo FJ, Gil P. Sonography in acute appendicitis: diagnostic utility and influence upon management and outcome. Eur Radiol 2000; 10: 1886-1893.
18. Orr RK, Porter D, Hartman D. Ultrasonography to evaluate adults for appendicitis: decision making based on meta-analysis and probabilistic reasoning. Acad Emerg Med 1995; 2: 644-650.
19. Olive ST, Kiser WR. Diagnosis of appendicitis. J Am Board Fam Pract 1996; 9: 306-307.
20. Alvarado A. A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med 1986; 15: 1048-1049.
21. Lisdonk EH van de, Bosch WHJM van den, Huygen FJA, Lagro-Janssen ALM. Ziekten in de huisartspraktijk. Bunge, 2002.
22. Flum DR, Morris A, Koepsell T, Dellinger EP. Has misdiagnosis of appendicitis decreased over time? A population-based analysis. JAMA 2001; 286: 1748-1753.