41
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values: Foundations, Pliabilities, and Pitfalls in Research and Practice

      Frontiers in Public Health
      Frontiers Media SA

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Within the context of screening tests, it is important to avoid misconceptions about sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. In this article, therefore, foundations are first established concerning these metrics along with the first of several aspects of pliability that should be recognized in relation to those metrics. Clarification is then provided about the definitions of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values and why researchers and clinicians can misunderstand and misrepresent them. Arguments are made that sensitivity and specificity should usually be applied only in the context of describing a screening test’s attributes relative to a reference standard; that predictive values are more appropriate and informative in actual screening contexts, but that sensitivity and specificity can be used for screening decisions about individual people if they are extremely high; that predictive values need not always be high and might be used to advantage by adjusting the sensitivity and specificity of screening tests; that, in screening contexts, researchers should provide information about all four metrics and how they were derived; and that, where necessary, consumers of health research should have the skills to interpret those metrics effectively for maximum benefit to clients and the healthcare system.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.

          In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Understanding and using sensitivity, specificity and predictive values

            In this article, we have discussed the basic knowledge to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. We have discussed the advantage and limitations of these measures and have provided how we should use these measures in our day-to-day clinical practice. We also have illustrated how to calculate sensitivity and specificity while combining two tests and how to use these results for our patients in day-to-day practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Sensitivity and specificity of the ankle--brachial index to diagnose peripheral artery disease: a structured review.

              The ankle-brachial index (ABI) is a simple, inexpensive diagnostic test for peripheral artery disease (PAD). However, it has shown variable accuracy for identification of significant stenosis. The authors performed a structured review of the sensitivity and specificity of ABI ≤ 0.90 for the diagnosis of PAD. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, Science Citation Index database, and Biological Abstracts database were searched for studies of the sensitivity and specificity of using ABI ≤ 0.90 for the diagnosis of PAD. Eight studies comprising 2043 patients (or limbs) met the inclusion criteria. The result indicated that, although strict inclusion criteria on studies were formulated, different reference standards were found in these studies, and methods of ABI determination and characteristics of populations varied greatly. A high level of specificity (83.3-99.0%) and accuracy (72.1-89.2%) was reported for an ABI ≤ 0.90 in detecting ≥ 50% stenosis, but there were different levels of sensitivity (15-79%). Sensitivity was low, especially in elderly individuals and patients with diabetes. In conclusion, the test of ABI ≤ 0.90 can be a simple and useful tool to identify PAD with serious stenosis, and may be substituted for other non-invasive tests in clinical practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Frontiers in Public Health
                Front. Public Health
                Frontiers Media SA
                2296-2565
                November 20 2017
                November 20 2017
                : 5
                Article
                10.3389/fpubh.2017.00307
                42789cf7-b766-43a1-b345-ba9408707fc0
                © 2017
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article