Objective assessment of diagnostic tests validity: a short review for clinicians and other mortals. Part II
The whole point of a diagnostic test is to use it to make a diagnosis,thus the obvious need is to know how accurately aparticular diagnostic test detects patients with or without adisease. In order to know it, a clinician or a researcher shouldhave a basic understanding of the principles of objectiveappraisal of diagnostic test. In the second part of this shortreview, the author presents the most common biostatisticalmethodology for assessment of a validity of diagnostic tests.Definitions and interpretations of accuracy and likelihoodratio are also provided together with methods of their calculation.
Accuracy, Likelihood ratio
Lok AS, McMahon BJ. Chronic hepatitis B. Hepatology.
Cadranel JF, Rufat P, Degos F. Practices of liver biopsy in France: results of a prospective nationwide survey. For the Group of Epidemiology of the French Association for the Study of the Liver (AFEF). Hepatology. 2000;32:477-81.
Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper. Papers that report diagnostic or screening tests. BMJ. 1997;315:540-3.
Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ. 1994;309:102.
Halkin A, Reichman J, Schwaber M, Paltiel O, Brezis M. Likelihood ratios: getting diagnostic testing into perspective. QJM. 1998;91(4):247-58.
Fagan TJ. Letter: Nomogram for Bayes theorem. N Engl J Med. 1975;293:257.
Okada T, Rao G. Using the likelihood ratio. J Fam Pract. 2005;54:127-8.
- There are currently no refbacks.
2019 Department of Medical Sciences, Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. All rights reserved.
The full text of articles published in this journal can be used free of charge for personal and educational purposes while respecting authors and publishers’ copyrights. For commercial purposes no part of this journal may be reproduced without the written permission of the publisher.