OBJECTIVE: Evaluations of screening or diagnostic tests sometimes incorporate measures of overall accuracy, diagnostic accuracy, or test efficiency. These terms refer to a single summary measurement calculated from 2 x 2 contingency tables that is the overall probability that a patient will be correctly classified by a screening or diagnostic test. We assessed the value of overall accuracy in studies of test validity, a topic that has not received adequate emphasis in the clinical literature. DESIGN: Guided by previous reports, we summarize the issues concerning the use of overall accuracy. To document its use in contemporary studies, a search was performed for test evaluation studies published in the clinical literature from 2000 to 2002 in which overall accuracy derived from a 2 x 2 contingency table was reported. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Overall accuracy is the weighted average of a test's sensitivity and specificity, where sensitivity is weighted by prevalence and specificity is weighted by the complement of prevalence. Overall accuracy becomes particularly problematic as a measure of validity as 1) the difference between sensitivity and specificity increases and/or 2) the prevalence deviates away from 50%. Both situations lead to an increasing deviation between overall accuracy and either sensitivity or specificity. A summary of results from published studies (N = 25) illustrated that the prevalence-dependent nature of overall accuracy has potentially negative consequences that can lead to a distorted impression of the validity of a screening or diagnostic test. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the intuitive appeal of overall accuracy as a single measure of test validity, its dependence on prevalence renders it inferior to the careful and balanced consideration of sensitivity and specificity.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluations of screening or diagnostic tests sometimes incorporate measures of overall accuracy, diagnostic accuracy, or test efficiency. These terms refer to a single summary measurement calculated from 2 x 2 contingency tables that is the overall probability that a patient will be correctly classified by a screening or diagnostic test. We assessed the value of overall accuracy in studies of test validity, a topic that has not received adequate emphasis in the clinical literature. DESIGN: Guided by previous reports, we summarize the issues concerning the use of overall accuracy. To document its use in contemporary studies, a search was performed for test evaluation studies published in the clinical literature from 2000 to 2002 in which overall accuracy derived from a 2 x 2 contingency table was reported. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Overall accuracy is the weighted average of a test's sensitivity and specificity, where sensitivity is weighted by prevalence and specificity is weighted by the complement of prevalence. Overall accuracy becomes particularly problematic as a measure of validity as 1) the difference between sensitivity and specificity increases and/or 2) the prevalence deviates away from 50%. Both situations lead to an increasing deviation between overall accuracy and either sensitivity or specificity. A summary of results from published studies (N = 25) illustrated that the prevalence-dependent nature of overall accuracy has potentially negative consequences that can lead to a distorted impression of the validity of a screening or diagnostic test. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the intuitive appeal of overall accuracy as a single measure of test validity, its dependence on prevalence renders it inferior to the careful and balanced consideration of sensitivity and specificity.
Authors: Panagiotis Tsatalpas; Bettina Beuthien-Baumann; Joachim Kropp; Andreas Manseck; Claudia Tiepolt; Oliver W Hakenberg; W Burchert; Wolf G Franke; Manfred P Wirth Journal: Urol Int Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: S Sone; F Li; Z G Yang; S Takashima; Y Maruyama; M Hasegawa; J C Wang; S Kawakami; T Honda Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Vinata B Lokeshwar; Grethchen L Schroeder; Marie G Selzer; Stefan H Hautmann; J Timothy Posey; Robert C Duncan; Roger Watson; Lyndon Rose; Steven Markowitz; Mark S Soloway Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Oleksandr Makeyev; Xiang Liu; Hiram Luna-Munguía; Gabriela Rogel-Salazar; Samuel Mucio-Ramirez; Yuhong Liu; Yan L Sun; Steven M Kay; Walter G Besio Journal: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Klaus W Neuhaus; Jonas Almeida Rodrigues; Isabel Hug; Herman Stich; Adrian Lussi Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2010-05-27 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Jessica S Hightower; Chiemezie Amadi; Elana Den; James E Schmitt; Rosita M Shah; Wallace T Miller Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: D G Bussaneli; M Restrepo; T Boldieri; T H Albertoni; L Santos-Pinto; R C L Cordeiro Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 3.161