ReviewArchives of disease in childhood2007
Quantifying how tests reduce diagnostic uncertainty.
Review in Archives of disease in childhood, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Large-scale prediction of adverse drug reactions-related proteins with network embedding.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Computer-Aided Detection of COVID-19 from CT Images Based on Gaussian Mixture Model and Kernel Support Vector Machines Classifier.Arabian journal for science and engineering · 2022Article
- Two-stage window screening and development trajectories in early identification of autism spectrum disorder among Han Chinese children.BMC research notes · 2021Article
- Assessing the Value of the Zebrafish Conditioned Place Preference Model for Predicting Human Abuse Potential.The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2017Article
- Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values: Foundations, Pliabilities, and Pitfalls in Research and Practice.Frontiers in public health · 2017Article
- Accuracy of Automated Flow Cytometry-Based Leukocyte Counts To Rule Out Urinary Tract Infection in Febrile Children: a Prospective Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
- A Prospective Longitudinal Study to Demonstrate the Utility of the Palliative Prognostic Index in Forecasting the Short-term Survival of Patients with Advanced Cancer in India.Indian journal of palliative careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiagnostic tests are commonly evaluated from sensitivity and specificity, which are robust and independent of prevalence, but clinically not intuitive. Many clinicians prefer to use positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV), but they are frequently applied as if they are independent of prevalence, whereas this may make an important difference. METHODS AND
resultsWe present graphs that allow easy reference to appropriate values and demonstrate that PPV and NPV are not independent of prevalence. PPV and NPV figures reflect the prior probability of the case having a positive diagnosis, estimated clinically from the history, examination and other results, as well as the impact of the test result. To avoid the common error of allowing for prior probability twice, and to interpret the impact of the test result alone, we present graphs of the proportionate reduction in uncertainty score (PRU), calculated from sensitivity, specificity and prevalence. These plots show the extent to which either a positive or negative test result affects the remaining degree of uncertainty about a diagnosis in either direction, according to likely clinical prevalence.
conclusionsPRU plots demonstrate the discriminatory value of tests more clearly than sensitivity and specificity from which they are derived, and should be published alongside them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.