The value of Bayes theorem in the interpretation of subjective diagnostic findings: What can we learn from agreement studies?

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 27, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 735-743

  Sadatsafavi, Mohsen ^a,d   Moayyeri, Alireza ^b   Bahrami, Hossein ^c   Soltani, Akbar ^b  

^a VANCOUVER COASTAL HEALTH   (Canada)

^b TEHRAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^d VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bayes theorem; Decision making; Posttest; Pretest; Probability

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PHYSICIAN; PROBABILITY; SIGNAL DETECTION;

BAYES THEOREM; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OBSERVER VARIATION; STOCHASTIC PROCESSES; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 36248971672     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07305322     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Altman DG, Bland JM Diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity and specificity. Br Med J. 1994 ; 308: 1552.
2. Kraemer HC Measurement of reliability for categorical data in medical research. Stat Methods Med Res. 1992 ; 1: 183 - 99.
3. Sackett DL Clinical disagreement: I. How often it occurs and why. Can Med Assoc J. 1980 ; 123: 499 - 504.
4. Beam CA Random-effects models in the receiver operating characteristic curve-based assessment of the effectiveness of diagnostic imaging technology: concepts, approaches, and issues. Acad Radiol. 1995 ; 2 (suppl 1). S4 - S13.
5. Wagner RF, Beam CA, Beiden SV Reader variability in mammography and its implications for expected utility over the population of readers and cases. Med Decis Making. 2004 ; 24: 561 - 72.
6. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists: findings from a national sample. Arch Intern Med. 1996 ; 156: 209 - 13.
7. Hanley JA The robustness of the ''binormal'' assumptions used in fitting ROC curves. Med Decis Making. 1988 ; 8: 197 - 203.
8. Swets JA Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science. 1988 ; 240: 1285 - 93.
9. Pastore RE, Crawley EJ, Berens MS, Skelly MA ''Nonparametric'' A' and other modern misconceptions about signal detection theory. Psychon Bull Rev. 2003 ; 10: 556 - 69.
10. Macmillan NA, Creelman CD Detection Theory: A User's Guide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press ; 1991.
11. Maddox WT Toward a unified theory of decision criterion learning in perceptual categorization. J Exp Anal Behav. 2002 ; 8: 567 - 95.
12. Lusted LB Decision Processes and Observer Error in Medical Diagnosis: Introduction to Medical Decision Making. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas ; 1968.
13. Metz CE, Shen JH Gains in accuracy from replicated readings of diagnostic images: prediction and assessment in terms of ROC analysis. Med Decis Making. 1992 ; 12: 60 - 75.
14. Obuchowski NA, Beiden SV, Berbaum KS, et al. Multireader, multicase receiver operating characteristic analysis: an empirical comparison of five methods. Acad Radiol. 2004 ; 11: 980 - 95.
15. Monsour MJ, Evans AT, Kupper LL Confidence intervals for posttest probability. Stat Med. 1991 ; 10: 443 - 56.
16. Phelps MA, Levitt MA Pretest probability estimates: a pitfall to the clinical utility of evidence-based medicine? Acad Emerg Med. 2004 ; 11: 692 - 4.
17. Rodger MA, Maser E., Stiell I., Howley HE, Wells PS The inter-observer reliability of pretest probability assessment in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Thromb Res. 2005 ; 116: 101 - 7.
18. Lachs MS, Nachamkin I., Edelstein PH, Goldman J., Feinstein AR, Schwartz JS Spectrum bias in the evaluation of diagnostic tests: lessons from the rapid dipstick test for urinary tract infection. Ann Intern Med. 1992 ; 117: 135 - 40.
19. Sackett DL, Straus S., Richardson WS, Rosenberg W., Haynes RB Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2 nd ed. Edinburgh, UK: Churchill Livingstone ; 2000. 20. Flury B. A First Course in Multivariate Statistics. New York: Springer ; 1997.
20. Tihansky DP Properties of bivariate normal cumulative distribution. Acad Emerg Med. 1972 ; 67: 903 - 5.
21. National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce. Table of the Bivariate Normal Distribution Function and Related Functions. Applied Mathematics Series 50. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office ; 1960.