Drop the likelihood ratio: A novel non-electronic tool for interpreting diagnostic test results

Methods of Information in Medicine

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 283-287

  Herich, L ^a   Lehmacher, W ^a   Hellmich, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bayes rule; Caraguel vanderstichel nomo gram; Diagnostic test; Ruler

Indexed keywords

BAYES THEOREM; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; PREDICTIVE VALUE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

BAYES THEOREM; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; LOGISTIC MODELS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS;

EID: 84930848869     PISSN: 00261270     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3414/ME14-01-0091     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Fagan TJ. Letter: Nomogram for Bayes theorem. N Engl J Med 1975; 293: 257.
2. Hellmich M, Lehmacher W. A ruler for inter -preting diagnostic test results. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44: 124–126.
3. Caraguel CG, Vanderstichel R. The two-step Fagan’s nomogram: ad hoc interpretation of a diagnostic test result without calculation. Evid Based Med 2013; 18: 125–128.
4. Deeks J, Altman D. Diagnostic tests 4: Likelihood ratios. Br Med J 2004; 329: 168–190.
5. Warner E, Messersmith H, Causer P, et al. Sys -tematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen woman at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148: 671–679.
6. Benish WA. The use of information graphs to evaluate and compare diagnostic tests. Methods Inf Med 2002; 41(2): 114–118.
7. Hughes G. Information graphs for epidemiological applications of the Kullback-Leibler divergence. Methods Inf Med 2014; 53 (1): 4–6.
8. Ughi E, Jassó J. Physical and virtual worlds in teaching mathematics: possibilities for an effective cooperation? Proceedings of the Fourth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 4, 2005). Available at http://www.mathematik.uni-dortmund.de/~erme/CERME4/index.php
9. Carley S, Dosman S, Jones SR, Harrison M. Simple nomograms to calculate sample size in diagnostic studies. EMJ 2005; 22 (3): 180–181.