PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 9666947

Likelihood ratios: getting diagnostic testing into perspective.

Abstract

In modern medicine, sophisticated laboratory tests and imaging studies are often emphasized at the expense of history and physical examination, rather than complementing clinical assessment. Ancillary testing often fails to advance the diagnostic process, and increases patient risk and the expense of medical care. The relative value of clinical evaluation and technological methods is rarely considered, and the power of the clinical evaluation is therefore underestimated. The likelihood ratio (LR) is a semiquantitative measure of the performance of diagnostic tests which indicates how much a diagnostic procedure modifies the probability of disease, and is calculated from the sensitivity and specificity of the test (or directly from the change in probability associated with the test result). We review the performance of frequently-used tests by their LRs, and compare them to the power of clinical assessment, with clinical cases to illustrate the application of LRs in the diagnostic process. The discriminative power of clinical assessment and ancillary tests is often similar, and the combination of the two greatly increases accuracy in the diagnostic process. Clinical assessment is indeed frequently more informative than current technical modalities. LRs assist in putting the value of testing in proper perspective. Practice in evaluating pre-test probabilities of disease and in the application of LRs should be enhanced in medical training.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A Halkin, J Reichman, M Schwaber, O Paltiel, M Brezis. 1998. Likelihood ratios: getting diagnostic testing into perspective.. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed%2F91.4.247

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

[Methodology of diagnostic validation studies. Errors in planning and analysis].

The evaluation of diagnostic tests play an important role in clinical research. Though detailed standards have been developed for treatment evaluation, widely accepted methodological standards in diagnostic test research are still lacking. Following recent methodological research German biostatisticians usually distinguish between 4 types of diagnostic validation studies (Phase I to IV). The diagnostic value of a test can be described by indexes like sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Sensitivity and specificity are so-called nosological probabilities whereas predictive values describe the probabilities of the disease given a positive or negative test result, respectively. These posterior probabilities depend on the prevalence of the disease in question. The methodological problems that arise in the planning of diagnostic studies differ from those encountered in treatment evaluation. This contribution presents an annotated checklist of the most important faults and shortcomings in the planning and the analysis of diagnostic validation studies. Avoiding these deficiencies may help that the study results are accepted by biostatisticians, clinicians and cost units.

Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures