Literature DB >> 26495380

Part 1: Simple Definition and Calculation of Accuracy, Sensitivity and Specificity.

Alireza Baratloo1, Mostafa Hosseini2, Ahmed Negida3, Gehad El Ashal4.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2015        PMID: 26495380      PMCID: PMC4614595     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg (Tehran)        ISSN: 2345-4563


× No keyword cloud information.

Introduction:

Emergency physicians, like other specialists, are faced with different patients and various situations every day. They have to use ancillary diagnostic tools like laboratory tests and imaging studies to be able to manage them (1-8). In most cases, numerous tests are available. Tests with the least error and the most accuracy are more desirable. The power of a test to separate patients from healthy people determines its accuracy and diagnostic value (9). Therefore, a test with 100% accuracy should be the first choice. This does not happen in reality as the accuracy of a test varies for different diseases and in different situations. For example, the value of D-dimer for diagnosing pulmonary embolism varies based on pre-test probability. It shows high accuracy in low risk patient and low accuracy in high risk ones. The characteristics of a test that reflects the aforementioned abilities are accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and positive and negative likelihood ratios (9-11). In this educational review, we will simply define and calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of a hypothetical test. Definitions: Patient: positive for disease Healthy: negative for disease True positive (TP) = the number of cases correctly identified as patient False positive (FP) = the number of cases incorrectly identified as patient True negative (TN) = the number of cases correctly identified as healthy False negative (FN) = the number of cases incorrectly identified as healthy Accuracy: The accuracy of a test is its ability to differentiate the patient and healthy cases correctly. To estimate the accuracy of a test, we should calculate the proportion of true positive and true negative in all evaluated cases. Mathematically, this can be stated as: Sensitivity: The sensitivity of a test is its ability to determine the patient cases correctly. To estimate it, we should calculate the proportion of true positive in patient cases. Mathematically, this can be stated as: Specificity: The specificity of a test is its ability to determine the healthy cases correctly. To estimate it, we should calculate the proportion of true negative in healthy cases. Mathematically, this can be stated as: Examples: Scenario 1 Imagine we have a sample of 100 cases, 50 healthy and the others patient. If a test can be positive for all patients and be negative for all the healthy ones, it is 100% accurate. In figure 1, arrow shows the test and it has been able to differentiate the healthy and patient exactly. In this example, the sensitivity of the test is 50 divided by 50 or 100% and its specificity in determining the healthy people is 50 divided by 50 or 100%.
Figure 1

A schematic presentation of an example test with 100% accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity

Taking into account the mentioned statistical characteristics, this test is appropriate for both screening and final verification of a disease. A schematic presentation of an example test with 100% accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity A schematic presentation of an example test with 75% accuracy, 50% sensitivity, and 100% specificity. A schematic presentation of an example test with 75% accuracy, 100% sensitivity, and 50% specificity. Scenario 2 If the test can only diagnose 25 out of the 50 patients and has reported the others as healthy (Figure 2); accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity will be as follows:
Figure 2

A schematic presentation of an example test with 75% accuracy, 50% sensitivity, and 100% specificity.

Accuracy: Of the 100 cases that have been tested, the test could determine 25 patients and 50 healthy cases correctly. Therefore, the accuracy of the test is equal to 75 divided by 100 or 75%. Sensitivity: From the 50 patients, the test has only diagnosed 25. Therefore, its sensitivity is 25 divided by 50 or 50%. Specificity: From the 50 healthy people, the test has correctly pointed out all 50. Therefore, its specificity is 50 divided by 50 or 100%. According to these statistical characteristics, this test is not suitable for screening purposes; but it is suited for the final confirmation of a disease. Scenario 3 This time we will assume that the test has been able to identify 25 of the 50 healthy cases and has reported the others as patients (Figure 3). In this scenario accuracy, sensitivity and specificity will be as follows:
Figure 3

A schematic presentation of an example test with 75% accuracy, 100% sensitivity, and 50% specificity.

Accuracy: Of the 100 cases that have been tested, the test could identify 25 healthy cases and 50 patients correctly. Therefore, the accuracy of the test is equal to 75 divided by 100 or 75%. Sensitivity: From the 50 patients, the test has diagnosed all 50. Therefore, its sensitivity is 50 divided by 50 or 100%. Specificity: From the 50 healthy cases, the test has correctly pointed out only 25. Therefore, its specificity is 25 divided by 50 or 50%. According to these statistical characteristics, this test is suited for screening purposes but it is not suitable for the final confirmation of a disease.
  9 in total

Review 1.  The interpretation of diagnostic test: a primer for physiotherapists.

Authors:  Megan Davidson
Journal:  Aust J Physiother       Date:  2002

2.  New scoring system for intra-abdominal injury diagnosis after blunt trauma.

Authors:  Majid Shojaee; Gholamreza Faridaalaee; Mahmoud Yousefifard; Mehdi Yaseri; Ali Arhami Dolatabadi; Anita Sabzghabaei; Ali Malekirastekenari
Journal:  Chin J Traumatol       Date:  2014

3.  Diagnostic tests. 1: Sensitivity and specificity.

Authors:  D G Altman; J M Bland
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-06-11

4.  Accuracy of urine dipstick in the detection of patients at risk for crush-induced rhabdomyolysis and acute kidney injury.

Authors:  Mostafa Alavi-Moghaddam; Saeed Safari; Iraj Najafi; Mostafa Hosseini
Journal:  Eur J Emerg Med       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 2.799

5.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasonography in the Initial Evaluation of Patients with Penetrating Chest Trauma.

Authors:  Farhad Heydari; Mehrdad Esmailian; Masoumeh Dehghanniri
Journal:  Emerg (Tehran)       Date:  2014

6.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Chest x-Ray and Ultrasonography in Detection of Community Acquired Pneumonia; a Brief Report.

Authors:  Ali Taghizadieh; Alireza Ala; Farzad Rahmani; Akbar Nadi
Journal:  Emerg (Tehran)       Date:  2015

7.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Ascites Fluid Gross Appearance in Detection of Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis.

Authors:  Hamed Aminiahidashti; Seyed Mohammad Hosseininejad; Hosein Montazer; Farzad Bozorgi; Iraj Goli Khatir; Fateme Jahanian; Behnaz Raee
Journal:  Emerg (Tehran)       Date:  2014

8.  Sonographic Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter as a Screening Tool for Detection of Elevated Intracranial Pressure.

Authors:  Afshin Amini; Razieh Eghtesadi; Ali Mohammad Feizi; Behnam Mansouri; Hamid Kariman; Ali Arhami Dolatabadi; Hamidreza Hatamabadi; Ali Kabir
Journal:  Emerg (Tehran)       Date:  2013

9.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasound in Detection of Traumatic Lens Dislocation.

Authors:  Seyed Hossein Ojaghi Haghighi; Hamid Reza Morteza Begi; Raana Sorkhabi; Mohammad Kazem Tarzamani; Golshan Kamali Zonouz; Akram Mikaeilpour; Farzad Rahmani
Journal:  Emerg (Tehran)       Date:  2014
  9 in total
  71 in total

1.  Cloud based ensemble machine learning approach for smart detection of epileptic seizures using higher order spectral analysis.

Authors:  Kuldeep Singh; Jyoteesh Malhotra
Journal:  Phys Eng Sci Med       Date:  2021-01-12

Review 2.  Photoplethysmography based atrial fibrillation detection: a review.

Authors:  Tania Pereira; Nate Tran; Kais Gadhoumi; Michele M Pelter; Duc H Do; Randall J Lee; Rene Colorado; Karl Meisel; Xiao Hu
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2020-01-10

3.  QUANTITATIVE OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY ANGIOGRAPHY FEATURES FOR OBJECTIVE CLASSIFICATION AND STAGING OF DIABETIC RETINOPATHY.

Authors:  Minhaj Alam; Yue Zhang; Jennifer I Lim; Robison V P Chan; Min Yang; Xincheng Yao
Journal:  Retina       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 4.256

4.  A Degradome-Based Polymerase Chain Reaction to Resolve the Potential of Environmental Samples for 2,4-Dichlorophenol Biodegradation.

Authors:  Eslam S Ibrahim; Mona T Kashef; Tamer M Essam; Mohammed A Ramadan
Journal:  Curr Microbiol       Date:  2017-08-12       Impact factor: 2.188

5.  Diabetes digital app technology: benefits, challenges, and recommendations. A consensus report by the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Diabetes Technology Working Group.

Authors:  G Alexander Fleming; John R Petrie; Richard M Bergenstal; Reinhard W Holl; Anne L Peters; Lutz Heinemann
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 10.122

6.  Association between mandibular second molars calcification stages in the panoramic images and cervical vertebral maturity in the lateral cephalometric images.

Authors:  Mohammad-Hossein Toodehzaeim; Elahe Rafiei; Seyyed-Hadi Hosseini; Alireza Haerian; Milad Hazeri-Baqdad-Abad
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2020-02-01

7.  Diagnostic Performance of Five Assays for Anti-Hepatitis E Virus IgG and IgM in a Large Cohort Study.

Authors:  Heléne Norder; Marie Karlsson; Åsa Mellgren; Jan Konar; Elisabeth Sandberg; Anders Lasson; Maria Castedal; Lars Magnius; Martin Lagging
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Effect of patient age on accuracy of primary MRI signs of long head of biceps tearing and instability in the shoulder: an MRI-arthroscopy correlation study.

Authors:  Camilo G Borrero; Joanna Costello; Marnie Bertolet; Dharmesh Vyas
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2017-10-06       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Volume measurements on weightbearing computed tomography can detect subtle syndesmotic instability.

Authors:  Soheil Ashkani Esfahani; Rohan Bhimani; Bart Lubberts; Gino M Kerkhoffs; Gregory Waryasz; Christopher W DiGiovanni; Daniel Guss
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2021-04-19       Impact factor: 3.494

10.  Paediatric bone lesions: diagnostic accuracy of imaging correlation and CT-guided needle biopsy for differentiating benign from malignant lesions.

Authors:  Alessandro Vidoni; Ian Pressney; Asif Saifuddin
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.