UNDERSTANDING THE SENSITIVITY, SPECIFICITY, AND PREDICTIVE VALUES USED IN DIAGNOSTIC TESTS

Authors

  • UMA SANKAR AKULA Department of Biochemistry, Trinity Medical Sciences University, RathoMill, Saint Vincent, West Indies
  • KASI MARIMUTHU Department of Environmental Science, Tezpur University, Tezpur, Assam, India.
  • NAGADHARSHAN DEVENDRA Department of Biochemistry, Trinity Medical Sciences University, RathoMill, Saint Vincent, West Indies

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2024v17i8.51243

Keywords:

Sensitivity,, Specificity, Diagnostic tests

Abstract

Numerous diagnostics and screening tests have been routinely used for screening diseased or infected from healthy and normal individuals. Clinicians rely on diagnostic and screening test results to make decisions on the diagnosis and initiate the treatment procedure. However, the diagnostic test outcomes vary from different tests and not always the outcome is 100 percent accurate. Hence the tests showing more accuracy and high sensitivity and specificity are given high priority by the clinicians. To evaluate the performance of dichotomous binary outcomes obtained from diagnostic test results, several statistical measures have been used. They are accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value and are intimately connected with probability calculations. Very often interpreting concepts such as false positive, and true negative are quite intuitive, but many students and even health professionals have difficulties in assessing the associated probabilities.  In this article, we will explain the terms and the statistical measures and how to relate and interpret them used in diagnostic tests.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Mouatcho JC, Goldring JP. Malaria rapid diagnostic tests: Challenges and prospects. J Med Microbiol. 2013;62(10):1491-505. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.052506-0, PMID 24048274

Zapala MA, Livingston K, Bokhari D, Phelps AS, Courtier JL, Ma C, et al. Improved diagnostic confidence and accuracy of pediatric elbow fractures with digital tomosynthesis. Pediatr Radiol. 2020;50(3):363-70.doi: 10.1007/s00247-019-04548-5, PMID 31745596

Xiao Z, Tang Z, Zheng C, Luo J, Zhao K, Zhang Z. Diffusion kurtosis imaging and intravoxel incoherent motion in differentiating nasal

mmalignancies. Laryngoscope. 2020;130(12):727-35. doi: 10.1002/lary.28424, PMID 31747056

Watts GS, Thornton JE Jr., Youens-Clark K, Ponsero AJ, Slepian MJ, Menashi E, et al. Identification and quantitation of clinically

relevant microbes in patient samples: Comparison of three k-mer based classifiers for speed, accuracy, and sensitivity. PLoS Comput

Biol. 2019;15(11):e1006863. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006863, PMID 31756192

Usui T, Yoshida Y, Nishi H, Yanagimoto S, Matsuyama Y, Nangaku M. Diagnostic accuracy of urine dipstick for proteinuria category in Japanese workers. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2020;24(2):151-6. doi: 10.1007/ s10157-019-01809-3, PMID 31734818

Scappaticcio L, Trimboli P, Keller F, Imperiali M, Piccardo A, Giovanella L. Diagnostic testing for Graves’ or non-Graves’

hyperthyroidism: A comparison of two thyrotropin receptor antibody immunoassays with thyroid scintigraphy and ultrasonography. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2020;92(2):169-78. doi: 10.1111/cen.14130

Published

07-08-2024

How to Cite

UMA SANKAR AKULA, KASI MARIMUTHU, and NAGADHARSHAN DEVENDRA. “UNDERSTANDING THE SENSITIVITY, SPECIFICITY, AND PREDICTIVE VALUES USED IN DIAGNOSTIC TESTS”. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research, vol. 17, no. 8, Aug. 2024, pp. 5-8, doi:10.22159/ajpcr.2024v17i8.51243.

Issue

Section

Case Study(s)