Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T02:13:21.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Multiple test results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2014

M. G. Myriam Hunink
Affiliation:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Milton C. Weinstein
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts
Eve Wittenberg
Affiliation:
Harvard School of Public Health, Massachusetts
Michael F. Drummond
Affiliation:
University of York
Joseph S. Pliskin
Affiliation:
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
John B. Wong
Affiliation:
Tufts University, Massachusetts
Paul P. Glasziou
Affiliation:
Bond University, Queensland
Get access

Summary

Even though the diagnostic radiologist examines black-and-white images, the information that is derived from the images is hardly ever black-and-white.

M.G. Myriam Hunink

Introduction

In the previous chapters we focused on dichotomous test results, e.g., fecal occult blood is either present or absent. Test results can conveniently be dichotomized, and thinking in terms of dichotomous test results is generally helpful. Distinguishing patients with and without the target disease is useful for the purpose of subsequent decision making because most medical actions are dichotomous. In reality, however, most test results have more than two possible outcomes. Test results can be categorical, ordinal, or continuous. For example, categories of a diagnostic imaging test may be defined by key findings on the images. These categories may be ordered (intuitively) according to the observer’s confidence in the diagnosis, based on the findings. As an example, abnormalities seen on mammography are commonly reported as definitely malignant, probably malignant, possibly malignant, probably benign, or definitely benign. As we shall see later in this chapter, it makes sense to order the categories (explicitly) according to increasing likelihood ratio (LR). Some test results are inherently ordinal, e.g., the five categories of a Papanicolaou smear (test for cervical cancer) are ordinal. Results of biochemical tests are usually given on a continuous scale, which may be reduced to an ordinal scale by grouping the test results. Thus, a test result on a continuous scale can be considered a result on an ordinal scale with an infinite number of very narrow categories. Scores from prediction models are on an ordinal scale if there are a finite number of possible scores, and on a continuous scale if there are an infinite number of scores. When test results are categorical, ordinal, or continuous, we have to consider many test results Ri, where i can be any value from two (the case we have considered in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6, T+ and T−) up to any number of categories. Interpretation of a test result on an ordinal scale can be considered a generalization of the situation of dichotomous test results.

Type
Chapter
Information
Decision Making in Health and Medicine
Integrating Evidence and Values
, pp. 165 - 208
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Diamond, GA, Forrester, JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1979;300(24):1350–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Genders, TS, Steyerberg, EW, Hunink, MG, et al. Prediction model to estimate presence of coronary artery disease: retrospective pooled analysis of existing cohorts. BMJ. 2012;344:e3485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pryor, DB, Harrell, FE, Lee, KL, Califf, RM, Rosati, RA. Estimating the likelihood of significant coronary artery disease. Am J Med. 1983;75(5):771–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Puylaert, JB, Rutgers, PH, Lalisang, RI, et al. A prospective study of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of appendicitis. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(11):666–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steyerberg, EW. Clinical Prediction Models: A practical approach to development, validation, and updating. Springer: 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steyerberg, EW, Vickers, AJ, Cook, NR, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology. 2010;21(1):128–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanley, JA, McNeil, BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology. 1983;148(3):839–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Efron, B, Tibshirani, RJ. An Introduction To The Bootstrap. CRC Press; 1998.Google Scholar
Hanley, JA. The robustness of the ‘binormal’ assumptions used in fitting ROC curves. Med Decis Making. 1988;8(3):197–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swets, JA. ROC analysis applied to the evaluation of medical imaging techniques. Invest Radiol. 1979;14(2):109–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dorfman, DD, Alf, E. Maximum likelihood estimation of parameters of signal detection theory – a direct solution. Psychometrika 1968; 117–24.
Phelps, CE, Mushlin, AI. Focusing technology assessment using medical decision theory. Med Decis Making. 1988;8:279–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pencina, MJ, D’Agostino, RB, D’Agostino, RB, Vasan, RS. Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med. 2008;27(2):157–72; discussion 207–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pencina, MJ, D’Agostino, RB, Steyerberg, EW. Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers. Stat Med. 2011;30(1):11–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Calster, B, Vickers, AJ, Pencina, MJ, et al. Evaluation of markers and risk prediction models: overview of relationships between NRI and decision-analytic measures. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(4):490–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vickers, AJ, Elkin, EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(6):565–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vickers, AJ, Cronin, AM, Elkin, EB, Gonen, M. Extensions to decision curve analysis, a novel method for evaluating diagnostic tests, prediction models and molecular markers. BMC Medical Informatics & Decision Making. 2008;8:53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vickers, AJ, Elkin, EB, Steyerberg, E. Net reclassification improvement and decision theory. Stat Med. 2009;28(3):525–6; author reply, 6–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, SG. Putting risk prediction in perspective: relative utility curves. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(22):1538–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, SG, Cook, NR, Vickers, A, Kramer, BS. Using relative utility curves to evaluate risk prediction. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172(4):729–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Genders, TS, Spronk, S, Stijnen, T, et al. Methods for calculating sensitivity and specificity of clustered data: a tutorial. Radiology. 2012;265(3):910–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinbach, WR, Richter, K. Multiple classification and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Med Decis Making. 1987;7(4):234–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chakraborty, DP, Winter, LHL. Free-response methodology: alternate analysis and a new observer-performance experiment. Radiology. 1990;174:873–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ananth, CV, Kleinbaum, DG. Regression models for ordinal responses: a review of methods and applications. Int J Epidemiol. 1997;26(6):1323–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrell, FE, Margolis, PA, Gove, S, et al. Development of a clinical prediction model for an ordinal outcome: the World Health Organization Multicentre Study of Clinical Signs and Etiological Agents of Pneumonia, Sepsis and Meningitis in Young Infants. WHO/ARI Young Infant Multicentre Study Group. Stat Med. 1998;17(8):909–44.3.0.CO;2-O>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dreiseitl, S, Ohno-Machado, L, Binder, M. Comparing three-class diagnostic tests by three-way ROC analysis. Med Decis Making. 2000;20(3):323–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Malley, AJ, Zou, KH. Bayesian multivariate hierarchical transformation models for ROC analysis. Stat Med. 2006;25(3):459–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunink, MGM, Kuntz, KM, Fleischmann, KE, Brady, TJ. Noninvasive imaging for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: focusing the development of new diagnostic technology. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131(9):673–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×