Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39075421›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024

From pre-test and post-test probabilities to medical decision making.

Michelle Pistner Nixon, Farhani Momotaz, Claire Smith, Jeffrey S Smith, Mark Sendak, Christopher Polage, Justin D Silverman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. How accurate should a precision medical test be to meet cost-effectiveness.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Michelle Pistner NixonCollege of Information Science and Technology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Farhani MomotazCollege of Information Science and Technology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Claire SmithHematology and Medical Oncology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Jeffrey S SmithDepartment of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Mark SendakDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Christopher PolageDepartment of Pathology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Justin D SilvermanCollege of Information Science and Technology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA. jds6696@psu.edu.

Funding

DMS/NIGMS 1: Addressing Measurement Limitations for Sequence Count DataR01GM148972 · NIGMS · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE · PI SILVERMAN, JUSTIN D · 2022 to 2024
$600k
Biochemical Determinants of Chemokine Receptor SignalingK08AR084617 · NIAMS · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI Jeffrey SCOTT Smith · 2024 to 2026
$502k
NIAMS NIH HHS K08 AR084617NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM148972NIH HHS 1 R01GM 148972-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA central goal of modern evidence-based medicine is the development of simple and easy to use tools that help clinicians integrate quantitative information into medical decision-making. The Bayesian Pre-test/Post-test Probability (BPP) framework is arguably the most well known of such tools and provides a formal approach to quantify diagnostic uncertainty given the result of a medical test or the presence of a clinical sign. Yet, clinical decision-making goes beyond quantifying diagnostic uncertainty and requires that that uncertainty be balanced against the various costs and benefits associated with each possible decision. Despite increasing attention in recent years, simple and flexible approaches to quantitative clinical decision-making have remained elusive.

methodsWe extend the BPP framework using concepts of Bayesian Decision Theory. By integrating cost, we can expand the BPP framework to allow for clinical decision-making.

resultsWe develop a simple quantitative framework for binary clinical decisions (e.g., action/inaction, treat/no-treat, test/no-test). Let p be the pre-test or post-test probability that a patient has disease. We show that

conclusionsOur approach is so simple that it should be thought of as a core, yet previously overlooked, part of the BPP framework. Unlike prior approaches to quantitative clinical decision-making, our approach requires little more than a hand-held calculator, is applicable in almost any setting where the BPP framework can be used, and excels in situations where the costs and benefits associated with a particular decision are patient-specific and difficult to quantify.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremClinical Decision-MakingDecision TheoryHumansProbabilityUncertaintyBayesian decision theoryDiagnostic uncertainty

Identifiers

PMID39075421
PMCPMC11285418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.