UNDERSTANDING THE SENSITIVITY, SPECIFICITY, AND PREDICTIVE VALUES USED IN DIAGNOSTIC TESTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2024v17i8.51243Keywords:
Sensitivity,, Specificity, Diagnostic testsAbstract
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
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
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2024 Uma Sankar Akulaa, Kasi Marimuthub, Nagadharshan Devendraa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The publication is licensed under CC By and is open access. Copyright is with author and allowed to retain publishing rights without restrictions.