ArticleJournal of diabetes and metabolic disorders2015
Correlation between clinicians-assigned weights to findings and their diagnostic odd ratio; case of congestive heart failure.
Article in Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncorrect estimation of pretest probability and misinterpretation of test results can change post-test probability in medical decision making. The aim of this study was to evaluate how physicians assess weight of findings of congestive heart failure (CHF) and how much their estimation is correlated with findings' Diagnostic Odd Ratio (DOR).
methodsThe participants were asked to answer a questionnaire based on a scenario of a patient having dyspnea. Eighteen findings in 3 categories including: history, examination and radiographic findings were inserted along a column and a row as a matrix. The respondents had to compare each finding in the column with all other findings in the row and insert a mark in boxes below the findings of the row that had greater weight compared to the finding in the column. The weight of each finding was considered as total number of "marked boxes" in front of that finding. DOR of findings was calculated using their positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) based on current best evidence. Findings ranked in the order of their DOR and were compared with the ranking in the order of participants-assigned weights. We examined correlation between average weights assigned by physicians and DOR of findings. In subgroup analysis correlations between average weights assigned by physicians and DOR of history, examination and radiographic findings were examined.
resultsSeventy five physicians completed the questionnaire. Correlation between ranking in the order of findings' DOR and ranking in the order of clinicians-assigned weights was significant (p-value = 0.005 r = 0.64). In contrast correlations between participants-assigned weights and DOR of history, examination and radiographic findings were positive but non- significant (r = 0.181, p-value = 0.7, r = 0.343, p-value = 0.506 and r = 0.219, p-value = 0.723 respectively).
conclusionOur result show that although correlation between clinicians-assigned weights and DOR of entire findings was significant, correlations between clinicians-assigned weights to the different categories of findings and their DOR were not significant. Reevaluating probabilistic reasoning by emphasis on using LRs can make pretest probability estimating and interpretation of test results more objective and would ultimate in more precise and homogenous post-test probabilities.
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.