↓ Skip to main content

CMAJ

Interpretation of diagnostic data: 5. How to do it with simple maths.

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Medical Association Journal, November 1983
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Interpretation of diagnostic data: 5. How to do it with simple maths.
Published in
Canadian Medical Association Journal, November 1983
Pubmed ID
Abstract

The use of simple maths with the likelihood ratio strategy fits in nicely with our clinical views. By making the most out of the entire range of diagnostic test results (i.e., several levels, each with its own likelihood ratio, rather than a single cut-off point and a single ratio) and by permitting us to keep track of the likelihood that a patient has the target disorder at each point along the diagnostic sequence, this strategy allows us to place patients at an extremely high or an extremely low likelihood of disease. Thus, the numbers of patients with ultimately false-positive results (who suffer the slings of labelling and the arrows of needless therapy) and of those with ultimately false-negative results (who therefore miss their chance for diagnosis and, possibly, efficacious therapy) will be dramatically reduced. The following guidelines will be useful in interpreting signs, symptoms and laboratory tests with the likelihood ratio strategy: Seek out, and demand from the clinical or laboratory experts who ought to know, the likelihood ratios for key symptoms and signs, and several levels (rather than just the positive and negative results) of diagnostic test results. Identify, when feasible, the logical sequence of diagnostic tests. Estimate the pretest probability of disease for the patient, and, using either the nomogram or the conversion formulas, apply the likelihood ratio that corresponds to the first diagnostic test result. While remembering that the resulting post-test probability or odds from the first test becomes the pretest probability or odds for the next diagnostic test, repeat the process for all the pertinent symptoms, signs and laboratory studies that pertain to the target disorder. However, these combinations may not be independent, and convergent diagnostic tests, if treated as independent, will combine to overestimate the final post-test probability of disease. You are now far more sophisticated in interpreting diagnostic tests than most of your teachers. In the last part of our series we will show you some rather complex strategies that combine diagnosis and therapy, quantify our as yet nonquantified ideas about use, and require the use of at least a hand calculator.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 8%
Unknown 12 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 23%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 15%
Other 1 8%
Lecturer 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 8%
Computer Science 1 8%
Decision Sciences 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 2 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2020.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#8,123
of 9,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,016
of 8,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,453 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.1. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 8,311 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.