Screening tests: a review with examples

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

Screening tests are widely used in medicine to assess the likelihood that members of a defined population have a particular disease. This article presents an overview of such tests including the definitions of key technical (sensitivity and specificity) and population characteristics necessary to assess the benefits and limitations of such tests. Several examples are used to illustrate calculations, including the characteristics of low dose computed tomography as a lung cancer screen, choice of an optimal PSA cutoff and selection of the population to undergo mammography. The importance of careful consideration of the consequences of both false positives and negatives is highlighted. Receiver operating characteristic curves are explained as is the need to carefully select the population group to be tested.

Related collections

Most cited references 168

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening.

(2011)

The aggressive and heterogeneous nature of lung cancer has thwarted efforts to reduce mortality from this cancer through the use of screening. The advent of low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) altered the landscape of lung-cancer screening, with studies indicating that low-dose CT detects many tumors at early stages. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was conducted to determine whether screening with low-dose CT could reduce mortality from lung cancer. From August 2002 through April 2004, we enrolled 53,454 persons at high risk for lung cancer at 33 U.S. medical centers. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo three annual screenings with either low-dose CT (26,722 participants) or single-view posteroanterior chest radiography (26,732). Data were collected on cases of lung cancer and deaths from lung cancer that occurred through December 31, 2009. The rate of adherence to screening was more than 90%. The rate of positive screening tests was 24.2% with low-dose CT and 6.9% with radiography over all three rounds. A total of 96.4% of the positive screening results in the low-dose CT group and 94.5% in the radiography group were false positive results. The incidence of lung cancer was 645 cases per 100,000 person-years (1060 cancers) in the low-dose CT group, as compared with 572 cases per 100,000 person-years (941 cancers) in the radiography group (rate ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.23). There were 247 deaths from lung cancer per 100,000 person-years in the low-dose CT group and 309 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the radiography group, representing a relative reduction in mortality from lung cancer with low-dose CT screening of 20.0% (95% CI, 6.8 to 26.7; P=0.004). The rate of death from any cause was reduced in the low-dose CT group, as compared with the radiography group, by 6.7% (95% CI, 1.2 to 13.6; P=0.02). Screening with the use of low-dose CT reduces mortality from lung cancer. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; National Lung Screening Trial ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).

0 comments Cited 2022 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the Timed Up & Go Test.

Anne Shumway-Cook, Sandy Brauer, Marjorie Woollacott (2000)

This study examined the sensitivity and specificity of the Timed Up & Go Test (TUG) under single-task versus dual-task conditions for identifying elderly individuals who are prone to falling. Fifteen older adults with no history of falls (mean age=78 years, SD=6, range=65-85) and 15 older adults with a history of 2 or more falls in the previous 6 months (mean age=86.2 years, SD=6, range=76-95) participated. Time taken to complete the TUG under 3 conditions (TUG, TUG with a subtraction task [TUGcognitive], and TUG while carrying a full cup of water [TUGmanual]) was measured. A multivariate analysis of variance and discriminant function and logistic regression analyses were performed. The TUG was found to be a sensitive (sensitivity=87%) and specific (specificity=87%) measure for identifying elderly individuals who are prone to falls. For both groups of older adults, simultaneous performance of an additional task increased the time taken to complete the TUG, with the greatest effect in the older adults with a history of falls. The TUG scores with or without an additional task (cognitive or manual) were equivalent with respect to identifying fallers and nonfallers. The results suggest that the TUG is a sensitive and specific measure for identifying community-dwelling adults who are at risk for falls. The ability to predict falls is not enhanced by adding a secondary task when performing the TUG.

0 comments Cited 733 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods.

Robert G Newcombe (1998)

Simple interval estimate methods for proportions exhibit poor coverage and can produce evidently inappropriate intervals. Criteria appropriate to the evaluation of various proposed methods include: closeness of the achieved coverage probability to its nominal value; whether intervals are located too close to or too distant from the middle of the scale; expected interval width; avoidance of aberrations such as limits outside [0,1] or zero width intervals; and ease of use, whether by tables, software or formulae. Seven methods for the single proportion are evaluated on 96,000 parameter space points. Intervals based on tail areas and the simpler score methods are recommended for use. In each case, methods are available that aim to align either the minimum or the mean coverage with the nominal 1 -alpha.

0 comments Cited 571 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

L. Daniel Maxim

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Inhal Toxicol

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Inhal Toxicol

Journal ID (publisher-id): uiht

Title: Inhalation Toxicology

Publisher: Taylor & Francis

ISSN (Print): 0895-8378

ISSN (Electronic): 1091-7691

Publication date (Print): November 2014

Publication date (Electronic): 29 September 2014

Volume: 26

Issue: 13

Pages: 811-828

Affiliations

[1 ]Everest Consulting Associates , Cranbury, NJ, USA

[2 ]Department of Medicine and Environmental Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry , Rochester, NY, USA

Author notes

Address for correspondence: Dr. L. Daniel Maxim, Everest Consulting Associates , 15 North Main St., Cranbury, NJ 08512, USA. E-mail: postsf@ 123456aol.com

Article

Publisher ID: UIHT-2014-0088.R1

DOI: 10.3109/08958378.2014.955932

PMC ID: 4389712

PubMed ID: 25264934

SO-VID: 39dda218-b236-49af-98b4-07b8b843d525

License:

This is an open access article distributed under the Supplemental Terms and Conditions for iOpenAccess articles published in Taylor & Francis journals , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

History

Date received : 8 July 2014

Date revision received : 6 August 2014

Date accepted : 13 August 2014

Page count

Figures: 7, Tables: 7, References: 144, Pages: 18

Comments

Comment on this article

Cited by 171

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 2,294

See all reference authors

- Version 1
- Version 1