|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Application of Treatment Thresholds to Diagnostic-test Evaluation
An Alternative to the Comparison of Areas under Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves
Karel G.M. Moons, PhD
Theo Stijnen, PhD
Bowine C. Michel, MD, PhD
Harry R. Büller, MD, PhD
Gerrit-Anne Van Es, PhD
Diederick E. Grobbee, MD, PhD
J. Dik F. Habbema, PhD
Diagnostic tests are often evaluated by comparison of the areas under receiver op erating charactenstic (ROC) curves. In this study the authors compared this approach with a more direct method that takes into account consequences of a diagnosis. Data from a prospective study of diagnosis of pulmonary embolism were used for a moti vating example. Using multivariable logistic regression analysis, three diagnostic mod els were built and compared based on their ROC curves. Although model 1 (0.706) and model 2 (0.702) had the same ROC-curve area, they performed differently when risks and benefits of subsequent decisions were considered by applying the treatment probability threshold. Models 1 and 3 (0.611) had substantially different ROC-curve areas but performed similarly taking into account the therapeutic consequences. This demonstrates that comparison of diagnostic tests using the areas under the ROC curves may lead to erroneous conclusions about therapeutic usefulness. To corre spond to daily practice, it would be more appropriate to also consider the clinical im plications in evaluating diagnostic tests. This is made feasible by explicit definition and application of a treatment threshold. Key words: benefits and risks; clinical relevance; diagnosis; diagnostic test evaluation; ROC curve; treatment threshold. (Med Decis Making 1997;17:447-454)
Medical Decision Making, Vol. 17, No. 4,
447-454 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9701700410
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
A. J. Vickers and E. B. Elkin
Decision Curve Analysis: A Novel Method for Evaluating Prediction Models
Med Decis Making,
November 1, 2006;
26(6):
565 - 574.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Oudega, K. G. Moons, and A. W Hoes
Limited value of patient history and physical examination in diagnosing deep vein thrombosis in primary care
Fam. Pract.,
February 1, 2005;
22(1):
86 - 91.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. E. Schrecengost, R. D. LeGallo, J. C. Boyd, K. G.M. Moons, S. L. Gonias, C. E. Rose Jr, and D. E. Bruns
Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracies in Outpatients and Hospitalized Patients of D-Dimer Testing for the Evaluation of Suspected Pulmonary Embolism
Clin. Chem.,
September 1, 2003;
49(9):
1483 - 1490.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. M. van der Meer, M. P. M. de Maat, A. J. Kiliaan, D. A. M. van der Kuip, A. Hofman, and J. C. M. Witteman
The Value of C-Reactive Protein in Cardiovascular Risk Prediction: The Rotterdam Study
Arch Intern Med,
June 9, 2003;
163(11):
1323 - 1328.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J A. Knottnerus, C. van Weel, and J. W M Muris
Evidence base of clinical diagnosis: Evaluation of diagnostic procedures
BMJ,
February 23, 2002;
324(7335):
477 - 480.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. A. van Klei, K. G. M. Moons, A. T. Rheineck Leyssius, J. T. A. Knape, C. L. G. Rutten, and D. E. Grobbee
A reduction in Type and Screen: preoperative prediction of RBC transfusions in surgery procedures with intermediate transfusion risks
Br. J. Anaesth.,
August 1, 2001;
87(2):
250 - 257.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. I. del Sol, K. G.M. Moons, M. Hollander, A. Hofman, P. J. Koudstaal, D. E. Grobbee, M. M.B. Breteler, J. C.M. Witteman, and M. L. Bots
Is Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Useful in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment? : The Rotterdam Study
Stroke,
July 1, 2001;
32(7):
1532 - 1538.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. E Shapiro
The interpretation of diagnostic tests
Statistical Methods in Medical Research,
April 1, 1999;
8(2):
113 - 134.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
