This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Boyko, E. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Boyko, E. J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Ruling Out or Ruling In Disease with the Most sensitiue or Specific Diagnostic Test

Short Cut or Wrong Turn ?

Previous publications have advocated that clinicians choose the most sensitive diagnostic test to rule out disease and the most specific diagnostic test to rule in disease. This paper critically examines the validity of these recommendations. First, the author finds that following these recommendations does not lead to the highest disease probability for a positive test result (thereby best ruling in disease) or the lowest disease probability for a negative test result (thereby best ruling out disease). In general, the ability of a diagnostic test to lead to the highest (rule in) or lowest (rule out) disease probability should be judged based on likelihood ratios. Next, by comparing expected utilities, the author considers whether the most specific test leads to the best clinical outcome when a rule-in strategy is clinically advisable, i.e., when the costs of false-positive results are high, and whether the most sensitive test leads to the best clinical outcome when a rule-out strategy is clinically advisable, i.e., when the costs of false-negative results are high. The author again demonstrates that the greatest clinical utility is not always achieved by using the most specific test in a rule-in decision or the most sensitive test in a rule-out decision. Tradeoffs between sensitivity, specificity, disease probability, and utilities of correct and incorrect disease classifications by the diagnostic test must be simultaneously captured to determine which strategy maxi mizes clinical utility. Key words: diagnostic tests; utilities. (Med Decis Making 1994;14:175- 179)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 14, No. 2, 175-179 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9401400210


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. M. Steinberg, J. Fine, and R. Chappell Sample size for positive and negative predictive value in diagnostic research using case-control designs Biostat., January 1, 2009; 10(1): 94 - 105. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. T. Bianchi, B. M. Alexander, and S. S. Cash Incorporating Uncertainty Into Medical Decision Making: An Approach to Unexpected Test Results Med Decis Making, January 1, 2009; 29(1): 116 - 124. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. Gu and M. S. Pepe Estimating the capacity for improvement in risk prediction with a marker Biostat., January 1, 2009; 10(1): 172 - 186. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. T Bianchi and B. M Alexander Evidence based diagnosis: does the language reflect the theory? BMJ, August 26, 2006; 333(7565): 442 - 445. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Jund, M. Rabilloud, M. Wallon, and R. Ecochard Methods to Estimate the Optimal Threshold for Normally or Log-Normally Distributed Biological Tests Med Decis Making, July 1, 2005; 25(4): 406 - 415. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. J. Wang, J. C. Evans, J. B. Meigs, N. Rifai, C. S. Fox, R. B. D'Agostino, D. Levy, and R. S. Vasan Low-Grade Albuminuria and the Risks of Hypertension and Blood Pressure Progression Circulation, March 22, 2005; 111(11): 1370 - 1376. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. C. J. W. Janssens, Y. Deng, G. J. J. M. Borsboom, M. J. C. Eijkemans, J. Dik. F. Habbema, and E. W. Steyerberg A New Logistic Regression Approach for the Evaluation of Diagnostic Test Results Med Decis Making, March 1, 2005; 25(2): 168 - 177. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. M. Redfield, R. J. Rodeheffer, S. J. Jacobsen, D. W. Mahoney, K. R. Bailey, and J. C. Burnett Jr Plasma Brain Natriuretic Peptide to Detect Preclinical Ventricular Systolic or Diastolic Dysfunction: A Community-Based Study Circulation, June 29, 2004; 109(25): 3176 - 3181. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. S. Pepe, H. Janes, G. Longton, W. Leisenring, and P. Newcomb Limitations of the Odds Ratio in Gauging the Performance of a Diagnostic, Prognostic, or Screening Marker Am. J. Epidemiol., May 1, 2004; 159(9): 882 - 890. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. J. Wang, D. Levy, E. J. Benjamin, and R. S. Vasan The Epidemiology of "Asymptomatic" Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction: Implications for Screening Ann Intern Med, June 3, 2003; 138(11): 907 - 916. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. S. Vasan, E. J. Benjamin, M. G. Larson, E. P. Leip, T. J. Wang, P. W. F. Wilson, and D. Levy Plasma Natriuretic Peptides for Community Screening for Left Ventricular Hypertrophy and Systolic Dysfunction: The Framingham Heart Study JAMA, September 11, 2002; 288(10): 1252 - 1259. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M Fritz and R. S Wainner Examining Diagnostic Tests: An Evidence-Based Perspective Physical Therapy, September 1, 2001; 81(9): 1546 - 1564. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. Baron Too Bad It Isn't True Med Decis Making, April 1, 1994; 14(2): 107 - 107. [PDF]