Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 9666947

Likelihood ratios: getting diagnostic testing into perspective.

Abstract

In modern medicine, sophisticated laboratory tests and imaging studies are often emphasized at the expense of history and physical examination, rather than complementing clinical assessment. Ancillary testing often fails to advance the diagnostic process, and increases patient risk and the expense of medical care. The relative value of clinical evaluation and technological methods is rarely considered, and the power of the clinical evaluation is therefore underestimated. The likelihood ratio (LR) is a semiquantitative measure of the performance of diagnostic tests which indicates how much a diagnostic procedure modifies the probability of disease, and is calculated from the sensitivity and specificity of the test (or directly from the change in probability associated with the test result). We review the performance of frequently-used tests by their LRs, and compare them to the power of clinical assessment, with clinical cases to illustrate the application of LRs in the diagnostic process. The discriminative power of clinical assessment and ancillary tests is often similar, and the combination of the two greatly increases accuracy in the diagnostic process. Clinical assessment is indeed frequently more informative than current technical modalities. LRs assist in putting the value of testing in proper perspective. Practice in evaluating pre-test probabilities of disease and in the application of LRs should be enhanced in medical training.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A Halkin, J Reichman, M Schwaber, O Paltiel, M Brezis. 1998. Likelihood ratios: getting diagnostic testing into perspective.. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed%2F91.4.247

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Impact of adjustment for quality on results of metaanalyses of diagnostic accuracy.

BACKGROUND: We examined whether and to what extent different strategies of defining and incorporating quality of included studies affect the results of metaanalyses of diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: We evaluated the methodological quality of 487 diagnostic-accuracy studies in 30 systematic reviews with the QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic-Accuracy Studies) checklist. We applied 3 strategies that varied both in the definition of quality and in the statistical approach to incorporate the quality-assessment results into metaanalyses. We compared magnitudes of diagnostic odds ratios, widths of their confidence intervals, and changes in a hypothetical clinical decision between strategies. RESULTS: Following 2 definitions of quality, we concluded that only 70 or 72 of 487 studies were of "high quality". This small number was partly due to poor reporting of quality items. None of the strategies for accounting for differences in quality led systematically to accuracy estimates that were less optimistic than ignoring quality in metaanalyses. Limiting the review to high-quality studies considerably reduced the number of studies in all reviews, with wider confidence intervals as a result. In 18 reviews, the quality adjustment would have resulted in a different decision about the usefulness of the test. CONCLUSIONS: Although reporting the results of quality assessment of individual studies is necessary in systematic reviews, reader wariness is warranted regarding claims that differences in methodological quality have been accounted for. Obstacles for adjusting for quality in metaanalyses are poor reporting of design features and patient characteristics and the relatively low number of studies in most diagnostic reviews.

Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures↗