Clinical Chemistry AACC Online Job Center
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 34: 1379-1386, 1988;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
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 Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Linnet, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Linnet, K.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 34, 1379-1386, Copyright © 1988 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

A review on the methodology for assessing diagnostic tests

K Linnet
Department of Clinical Chemistry, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Evaluation of diagnostic tests by the following principles are reviewed: error rates, scores based on posterior probabilities, and the excess loss considered in a decision theoretic context. Error rates or the complementary non-error rates, specificity and sensitivity, are simple measures which provide a rough indication of the discriminative value. In clinical practice, where a test serves as a decision support together with other information, conversion of test results to posterior probabilities is recommended. An aggregate score of these probabilities expresses the value of the test. Finally, in simple, well- defined cases--for example, screening situations, where the prevalence of disease and the relative consequences of false-positive and - negative classifications can be estimated--a Bayesian decision analysis is appropriate. The optimal discrimination limit is selected, and the total loss is minimized. The likelihood ratio LR(x) plays a central role in probability calculations and in the decision analysis. An example illustrates application of the procedures.


The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 Hum Exp ToxicolHome page
S Hoffmann and T Hartung
Toward an evidence-based toxicology
Human and Experimental Toxicology, September 1, 2006; 25(9): 497 - 513.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Toxicol SciHome page
S. Hoffmann and T. Hartung
Diagnosis: Toxic! - Trying to Apply Approaches of Clinical Diagnostics and Prevalence in Toxicology Considerations
Toxicol. Sci., May 1, 2005; 85(1): 422 - 428.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Obstet GynecolHome page
T. J. Clark, S. H. Bakour, J. K. Gupta, and K. S. Khan
Evaluation of Outpatient Hysteroscopy and Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Endometrial Disease
Obstet. Gynecol., June 1, 2002; 99(6): 1001 - 1007.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Stat Methods Med ResHome page
D. E Shapiro
The interpretation of diagnostic tests
Statistical Methods in Medical Research, April 1, 1999; 8(2): 113 - 134.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 StrokeHome page
D. W.J. Dippel and P. J. Koudstaal
We Need Stronger Predictors of Major Vascular Events in Patients With a Recent Transient Ischemic Attack or Nondisabling Stroke
Stroke, April 1, 1997; 28(4): 774 - 776.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1988 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.