Dermatologists need to interpret an increasing number of research studies and diagnostic tests. Understanding the techniques for interpreting test results and making decisions based upon those tests represent important tools for decision making for both clinicians and researchers.
Objective:
This article focuses briefly on the key parameters of diagnostic tests: sensitivity, specificity, prevalence, predictive values, likelihood ratios, and the concept of receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curves. A simple example is presented in a step-by-step manner.
Conclusion:
The principles of interpreting test results are easy to learn and applicable in daily clinical routine. Therefore, dermatologists should be familiar with the concepts outlined in this paper.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
WeinstockMA. Validation of a diagnostic test. Epidemiologic principles in dermatology. Arch Dermatol1989; 125:1260–1264.
2.
SolomonDHHashimotoHDaltroyLLiangMH. Techniques to improve physicians' use of diagnostic tests: A new conceptual framework. JAMA1998; 280: 2020–2027.
3.
SoxHCBlattMAHigginsMCMarionKI. Measuring the accuracy of clinical data. In: Medical decision making. 1st Ed.Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1988:103–145.
4.
JaeschkeRGuyattGSackettDL. Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA1994; 271:389–391.
5.
KassirerJP. Diagnostic reasoning. Ann Intern Med1989; 110: 893–900.
6.
LangTASecicM. Determining the presence and absence of disease. In: How to report statistics in medicine. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians, 1997:147–169.
7.
SackettDLHaynesRBGuyattGHTugwellP. The interpretation of diagnostic data. In: Clinical epidemiology. 2nd Ed.Boston: Little Brown, 1991:69–152.
8.
BrownSLHansenSLLangoneJJ. Role of serology in the diagnosis of Lyme disease. JAMA1999; 282:62–66.
9.
SchmitzJLPowellCSFoldsJD. Comparison of seven commercial kits for detection of antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis1993; 12:419–424.
10.
TugwellPDennisDTWeinsteinA. Laboratory evaluation in the diagnosis of Lyme disease. Ann Intern Med1997; 127: 1109–1123.
11.
NicholGDennisDTSteereAC. Test-treatment strategies for patients suspected of having Lyme disease: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med1998; 128:37–48.
12.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for test performance and interpretation from the Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease. JAMA1995; 274:937.
13.
PaukerSGKassirerJP. Decision analysis. N Engl J Med1987; 316:250–258.
PaukerSGKassirerJP. The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N Engl J Med1980; 302:1109–1117.
16.
FeinsteinAR. Clinical biostatistics. XXXIX. The haze of Bayes, the aerial palaces of decision analysis, and the computerized Ouija board. Clin Pharmacol Ther1977; 21:482–496.
17.
SoxHCBlattMAHigginsMCMartonKI. Understanding new information: Bayes' theorem. In: Medical decision making. 1st Ed.Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1988:67–100.
18.
FaganTJ. Letter: Nomogram for Bayes theorem. N Engl J Med1975; 293:257.
19.
SwetsJAPickertRM. Evaluation of diagnostic systems. Methods form signal detection theory. New York: Academic Press, 1982.
20.
HanleyJAMcNeilBJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology1982; 143:29–36.
21.
HarrellFEJCaliffRMPryorDB. Evaluating the yield of medical tests. JAMA1982; 247:2543–2546.
22.
HanleyJAMcNeilBJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology1983; 148:839–843.
