Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Medical Decision Making
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Black, W. C.
Right arrow Articles by Dwyer, A. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Black, W. C.
Right arrow Articles by Dwyer, A. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Local versus Global Measures of Accuracy

An Important Distinction for Diagnostic Imaging

William C. Black, MD

Andrew J. Dwyer, MD

Unlike many tests, diagnostic imaging provides information about the location of disease, in addition to its presence or absence. To account for this ability of imaging, the authors make the distinction between local and global measures of accuracy. Local pertains to each anatomic site of potential disease in the patient and the corresponding image, while global refers to all such sites, collectively. After making this distinction, the authors demonstrate two major problems with global sensitivity and specificity, which are more commonly reported than their local counterparts. First, global sensitivity, unlike local sensitivities, varies with the anatomic distribution of disease in the reference population. Second, the conventional global measures cannot be integrated with pretest knowledge about the anatomic distribution of disease. Consequently, predictive values based on global sensitivity and specificity under estimate the probability of disease when imaging and clinical findings correlate anatomically and overestimate the probability when the findings do not correlate. The local versus global distinction supports the commonsense notion that information pertaining to the anatomic distribution of disease is crucial for test interpretation.

Key Words: Key words: sensitivity and specificity • classification matrix • diagnostic imaging • anatomic location • Bayes' theorem • local versus global. (Med Decis Making 1990;10:266-273)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 10, No. 4, 266-273 (1990)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9001000404
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?