Diagnostic tests performance indices: an overview.

IF 1.8 Biochemia medica Pub Date : 2025-02-15 DOI:10.11613/BM.2025.010101
Farrokh Habibzadeh
{"title":"Diagnostic tests performance indices: an overview.","authors":"Farrokh Habibzadeh","doi":"10.11613/BM.2025.010101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Diagnostic tests are important means in clinical practice. To assess the performance of a diagnostic test, we commonly need to compare its results to those obtained from a gold standard test. The test sensitivity is the probability of having a positive test in a diseased-patient; the specificity, a negative test result in a disease-free person. However, none of these indices are useful for clinicians who are looking for the inverse probabilities, <i>i.e.,</i> the probabilities of the presence and absence of the disease in a person with a positive and negative test result, respectively, the so-called positive and negative predictive values. Likelihood ratios are other performance indices, which are not readily comprehensible to clinicians. There is another index proposed that looks more comprehensible to practicing physicians - the number needed to misdiagnose. It is the number of people who need to be tested in order to find one misdiagnosed (a false positive or a false negative result). For tests with continuous results, it is necessary to set a cut-off point, the choice of which affects the test performance. To arrive at a correct estimation of test performance indices, it is important to use a properly designed study and to consider various aspects that could potentially compromise the validity of the study, including the choice of the gold standard and the population study, among other things. Finally, it may be possible to derive the performance indices of a test solely based on the shape of the distribution of its results in a given group of people.</p>","PeriodicalId":94370,"journal":{"name":"Biochemia medica","volume":"35 1","pages":"010101"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11838712/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biochemia medica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2025.010101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Diagnostic tests are important means in clinical practice. To assess the performance of a diagnostic test, we commonly need to compare its results to those obtained from a gold standard test. The test sensitivity is the probability of having a positive test in a diseased-patient; the specificity, a negative test result in a disease-free person. However, none of these indices are useful for clinicians who are looking for the inverse probabilities, i.e., the probabilities of the presence and absence of the disease in a person with a positive and negative test result, respectively, the so-called positive and negative predictive values. Likelihood ratios are other performance indices, which are not readily comprehensible to clinicians. There is another index proposed that looks more comprehensible to practicing physicians - the number needed to misdiagnose. It is the number of people who need to be tested in order to find one misdiagnosed (a false positive or a false negative result). For tests with continuous results, it is necessary to set a cut-off point, the choice of which affects the test performance. To arrive at a correct estimation of test performance indices, it is important to use a properly designed study and to consider various aspects that could potentially compromise the validity of the study, including the choice of the gold standard and the population study, among other things. Finally, it may be possible to derive the performance indices of a test solely based on the shape of the distribution of its results in a given group of people.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
诊断测试性能指标:概述。
诊断试验是临床实践的重要手段。为了评估诊断测试的性能,我们通常需要将其结果与金标准测试的结果进行比较。检测灵敏度是指患者检测结果呈阳性的概率;特异性,无病患者的阴性检测结果。然而,这些指标对于寻找逆概率的临床医生都没有用处,即分别具有阳性和阴性检测结果的人存在和不存在疾病的概率,即所谓的阳性和阴性预测值。似然比是临床医生不易理解的其他性能指标。还有另一个指标被提出,看起来对执业医生来说更容易理解——误诊所需的数量。它是为了发现一个误诊(假阳性或假阴性结果)而需要进行检测的人数。对于具有连续结果的测试,有必要设置一个截止点,该截止点的选择会影响测试性能。为了对测试性能指数做出正确的估计,重要的是要使用一个设计合理的研究,并考虑可能损害研究有效性的各个方面,包括金标准的选择和人口研究等。最后,有可能仅仅根据测试结果在某一特定人群中的分布形状来得出测试的表现指数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Claudins proteins in brain tumors: expression patterns and therapeutic target. The analytical impact of extracellular vesicles PSA on different commercial total PSA measurement methods. Effect sizes for nonparametric tests. Unexpected abnormal flotation of gel separator in tube of post dialysis samples: a case report highlighting the critical role of sampling site selection. The cancer ratio plus in the differential diagnosis of pleural effusions: a scoping review of current evidence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1