Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to browse AJSM online!

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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Young, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, S. V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Young, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, S. V.
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?

The Single-cutoff Trap

Implications for Bayesian Analysis of Stress Electrocardiograms

Mark J. Young, M.D.

Lisbeth S. Fried, Ph.D.

John M. Eisenberg, M.D.

John C. Hershey, Ph.D.

Sankey V. Williams, M.D.

Quantitative analysis of exercise electrocardiograms has been emphasized by many inves tigators. Specific problems have been found when a single cutoff is used to define a positive or a negative test: a single cutoff does not distinguish stress electrocardiography results that are slightly positive from those that are markedly positive. This may lead clinicians to un derweigh strong evidence for or against coronary artery disease. This study evaluated cli nicians' quantitative analysis of stress electrocardiograms. Two hundred and thirty-five physicians interpreted the results of mildly positive (1.2 mm ST-segment depression) and strongly pos itive (2.2 mm ST-segment depression) stress electrocardiograms. Their posttest probability estimates were too high for a mildly positive test (0.62 ± 0.02 versus actual of 0.38; p <0.001) and too low for a strongly positive test (0.77 ± 0.01 versus actual of 0.98; p <0.001). Physicians should understand decision aids and should use multiple rather than single cutoffs to interpret the results of stress electrocardiography.

Key Words: Key words: stress electrocardiography • Bayes' theorem • medical decision making. (Med Decis Making 1989;9:176-180)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 9, No. 3, 176-180 (1989)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8900900305


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?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JNMHome page
J. W. Fletcher, S. M. Kymes, M. Gould, N. Alazraki, R. E. Coleman, V. J. Lowe, C. Marn, G. Segall, L. A. Thet, K. Lee, et al.
A Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of 18F-FDG PET and CT in the Characterization of Solitary Pulmonary Nodules
J. Nucl. Med., February 1, 2008; 49(2): 179 - 185.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Med Decis MakingHome page
S. Eriksen and L. R. Keller
A Multiattribute-utility-function Approach to Weighing the Risks and Benefits of Pharmaceutical Agents
Med Decis Making, June 1, 1993; 13(2): 118 - 125.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Med Decis MakingHome page
K. A. Schulman, J. J. Escarce, J. M. Eisenberg, J. C. Hershey, M. J. Young, D. M. McCarthy, and S. V. Williams
Assessing Physicians Estimates of the Probability of Coronary Artery Disease: The Influence of Patient Characteristics
Med Decis Making, June 1, 1992; 12(2): 109 - 114.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Med Decis MakingHome page
R. S. Dittus
Navigating through the Turbulence in Health Care
Med Decis Making, August 1, 1989; 9(3): 155 - 156.
[PDF]