Literature DB >> 9609869

Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences.

U Hoffrage1, G Gigerenzer.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To test whether physician's diagnostic inferences can be improved by communicating information using natural frequencies instead of probabilities. Whereas probabilities and relative frequencies are normalized with respect to disease base rates, natural frequencies are not normalized.
METHOD: The authors asked 48 physicians in Munich and Düsseldorf to determine the positive predictive values (PPVs) of four diagnostic tests. Information presented in the four problems appeared either as probabilities (the traditional way) or as natural frequencies.
RESULTS: When the information was presented as probabilities, the physicians correctly estimated the PPVs in only 10% of cases. When the same information was presented as natural frequencies, that percentage increased to 46%.
CONCLUSION: Representing information in natural frequencies is a fast and effective way of facilitating diagnosis insight, which in turn helps physicians to better communicate risks to patients, and patients to better understand these risks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9609869     DOI: 10.1097/00001888-199805000-00024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  71 in total

Review 1.  Measuring patients' preferences for treatment and perceptions of risk.

Authors:  A Bowling; S Ebrahim
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

2.  Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight.

Authors:  Gerd Gigerenzer; Adrian Edwards
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-27

Review 3.  What are the chances? Evaluating risk and benefit information in consumer health materials.

Authors:  Jacquelyn Burkell
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2004-04

4.  Does prevalence matter to physicians in estimating post-test probability of disease? A randomized trial.

Authors:  Thomas Agoritsas; Delphine S Courvoisier; Christophe Combescure; Marie Deom; Thomas V Perneger
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-11-04       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  A Randomised Assessment of Trainee Doctors' Understanding and Interpretation of Diagnostic Test Results.

Authors:  V L Parker; J E Ritchie; T M Drake; J Hookham; S P Balasubramanian
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Guest editorial.

Authors:  Andrew Herxheimer
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Intuitive t tests: lay use of statistical information.

Authors:  Natalie A Obrecht; Gretchen B Chapman; Rochel Gelman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2007-12

8.  Reasons for ordering spinal x-ray investigations: how they influence general practitioners' management.

Authors:  P H H Houben; T der van Weijden; J Sijbrandij; R P T M Grol; R A Winkens
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 9.  Accepting risk in clinical research: is the gene therapy field becoming too risk-averse?

Authors:  Claire T Deakin; Ian E Alexander; Ian Kerridge
Journal:  Mol Ther       Date:  2009-09-22       Impact factor: 11.454

10.  If children understand drawing straws and flipping coins, research participants can understand randomization.

Authors:  Jeremy Howick
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 11.229

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.