Communicating accuracy of tests to general practitioners: a controlled study - PubMed (original) (raw)
Clinical Trial
. 2002 Apr 6;324(7341):824-6.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7341.824.
Affiliations
- PMID: 11934776
- PMCID: PMC100792
- DOI: 10.1136/bmj.324.7341.824
Free PMC article
Clinical Trial
Communicating accuracy of tests to general practitioners: a controlled study
Johann Steurer et al. BMJ. 2002.
Free PMC article
Erratum in
- BMJ 2002 Jun 8;324(7350):1391
Abstract
Objective: To assess the extent to which different forms of summarising diagnostic test information influence general practitioners' ability to estimate disease probabilities.
Design: Controlled questionnaire study.
Setting: Three Swiss conferences in continuous medical education.
Participants: 263 general practitioners.
Intervention: Questionnaire with multiple choice questions about terms of test accuracy and a clinical vignette with the results of a diagnostic test described in three different ways (test result only, test result plus test sensitivity and specificity, test result plus the positive likelihood ratio presented in plain language).
Main outcome measures: Doctors' knowledge and application of terms of test accuracy and estimation of disease probability in the clinical vignette.
Results: The correct definitions for sensitivity and predictive value were chosen by 76% and 61% of the doctors respectively, but only 22% chose the correct answer for the post-test probability of a positive screening test. In the clinical vignette doctors given the test result only overestimated its diagnostic value (median attributed likelihood ratio (aLR)=9.0, against 2.54 reported in the literature). Providing the scan's sensitivity and specificity reduced the overestimation (median aLR=6.0) but to a lesser extent than simple wording of the likelihood ratio (median aLR=3.0).
Conclusion: Most general practitioners recognised the correct definitions for sensitivity and positive predictive value but did not apply them correctly. Conveying test accuracy information in simple, non-technical language improved their ability to estimate disease probabilities accurately.
Figures
Figure
Probability of presence of disease attributed by general practitioners to a positive result from transvaginal ultrasound scanning in women with abnormal uterine bleeding. Group 1 received no information on test accuracy, group 2 was provided with test sensitivity (80%) and specificity (60%), group 3 was presented with the positive likelihood ratio of 2 in non-technical language. (Box and whisker plots show medians, 25th and 75th centiles, and ranges)
Similar articles
- A Randomised Assessment of Trainee Doctors' Understanding and Interpretation of Diagnostic Test Results.
Parker VL, Ritchie JE, Drake TM, Hookham J, Balasubramanian SP. Parker VL, et al. World J Surg. 2016 Jan;40(1):21-8. doi: 10.1007/s00268-015-3214-2. World J Surg. 2016. PMID: 26306891 Clinical Trial. - Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients.
Garcia-Retamero R, Hoffrage U. Garcia-Retamero R, et al. Soc Sci Med. 2013 Apr;83:27-33. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.01.034. Epub 2013 Feb 8. Soc Sci Med. 2013. PMID: 23465201 - Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
Crider K, Williams J, Qi YP, Gutman J, Yeung L, Mai C, Finkelstain J, Mehta S, Pons-Duran C, Menéndez C, Moraleda C, Rogers L, Daniels K, Green P. Crider K, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36321557 Free PMC article. - How well do health professionals interpret diagnostic information? A systematic review.
Whiting PF, Davenport C, Jameson C, Burke M, Sterne JA, Hyde C, Ben-Shlomo Y. Whiting PF, et al. BMJ Open. 2015 Jul 28;5(7):e008155. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008155. BMJ Open. 2015. PMID: 26220870 Free PMC article. Review. - The interpretation of diagnostic test: a primer for physiotherapists.
Davidson M. Davidson M. Aust J Physiother. 2002;48(3):227-32. doi: 10.1016/s0004-9514(14)60228-2. Aust J Physiother. 2002. PMID: 12217073 Review.
Cited by
- The accuracy of prehospital triage decisions in English trauma networks - a case-cohort study.
Fuller G, Baird J, Keating S, Miller J, Pilbery R, Kean N, McKnee K, Turner J, Lecky F, Edwards A, Rosser A, Fothergill R, Black S, Bell F, Smyth M, Smith JE, Perkins GD, Herbert E, Walters S, Cooper C; MATTS research group. Fuller G, et al. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2024 May 21;32(1):47. doi: 10.1186/s13049-024-01219-9. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2024. PMID: 38773613 Free PMC article. - Family physicians overestimate diagnosis probabilities regardless of the test results.
Ataç Ö, Küçükali H, Farımaz AZT, Palteki AS, Çavdar S, Aslan MN, Atak M, Sezerol MA, Taşçı Y, Hayran O. Ataç Ö, et al. Front Med (Lausanne). 2024 Jan 8;10:1123689. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1123689. eCollection 2023. Front Med (Lausanne). 2024. PMID: 38259829 Free PMC article. - The impact of problem domain on Bayesian inferences: A systematic investigation.
Pighin S, Filimon F, Tentori K. Pighin S, et al. Mem Cognit. 2024 May;52(4):735-751. doi: 10.3758/s13421-023-01497-1. Epub 2024 Jan 10. Mem Cognit. 2024. PMID: 38200204 Free PMC article. - Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool for the detection of psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis.
Kaymaz S, Karasu U, Kaçar N, Alkan H. Kaymaz S, et al. Arch Rheumatol. 2022 Mar 30;37(4):483-494. doi: 10.46497/ArchRheumatol.2022.8221. eCollection 2022 Dec. Arch Rheumatol. 2022. PMID: 36879574 Free PMC article. - The Interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Tests.
Stites EC, Wilen CB. Stites EC, et al. Med. 2020 Dec 18;1(1):78-89. doi: 10.1016/j.medj.2020.08.001. Epub 2020 Aug 21. Med. 2020. PMID: 32864639 Free PMC article. Review.
References
- Eddy DM. Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: problems and opportunities. In: Kahnemann D, Slovic P, Tversky A, editors. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982. pp. 249–267.
- Hoffrage U, Lindsey S, Hertwig R, Gigerenzer G. Communicating statistical information. Science. 2000;290:2261. - PubMed
- Kahnemann D, Tversky A. Choices, values and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Russel Sage Foundation; 2000.
- Clark TJ, Khan KS, Bakour SH, Gupta JK. Evaluation of outpatient hysteroscopy and ultrasonography in the diagnosis of endometrial disease. Obstet Gynecol (in press). - PubMed
- Bronz L, Dreher E, Almendral A, Studer A, Haller U. Abklärung von postmenopausalen Blutungen (PMBP) Schweizerische Aerztezeitung. 2000;81:1635–1646. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous