Understanding diagnostic tests. Part 1.

Ferreira, Juliana Carvalho; Patino, Cecilia María

doi:10.1590/s1806-37562017000000330

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 2 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the previous articles from this series 1 , 2 we discussed important characteristics used in order to evaluate diagnostic tests: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. In this final part, we discuss positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR−), and ROC curves.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding diagnostic tests. Part 3.

Ferreira

Patino

2018

J. bras. pneumol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding diagnostic tests. Part 3.

Ferreira

Patino

2018

J. bras. pneumol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition, the Mann-Whitney U test and To validate the diagnostic tests, calculations of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios were performed using the Virtual Health Library (Biblioteca Virtual de Saúde, BVS) virtual calculator [17] . Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy vary from 0-1 [18] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of early diagnostic tools for neural lesions in leprosy An observational cohort study

Cegana

Nardi

Pascoeto

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionLeprosy can cause different lesions in peripheral nerves and inervatory structures.ObjectivesTo analyse the effectiveness of evaluation protocols used to identify neural lesions in leprosy such as Degree of Physical Disability (DPD), Simplified Neurological Assessment (SNA), and Neurodynamic Assessment (NDA).MethodDescriptive analytical study, associative, with 27 individuals treated in two outpatient leprosy clinics in São Paulo State, between 2017 and 2019, and 27 individuals from the paired control group. The Mann-Whitney, Multivariate Linear Regression and association between variables and P<0.05 values were used.ResultsThe test that most captured the neurological alterations was the SNA, with 22 (81.5%) in the upper limbs (ULs) and 25 (92.6%) in the lower limbs (LLs), followed by the NDA, with 20 (74.1%) in the ULs and 11 (40.7%) in the LLs. The DPD showed handicap in the hands of 16 (59.2%) individuals and in the feet of 17 (62.9%) individuals, and they have expressed sensitivity. DPD showed agreement with SNA in 21 (77.8%) of the cases in ULs (p=0.010) and 19 (70,4%) of the cases in LLs (p=0.060). DPD and NDA showed that in 19 (70.4%) of the patients evaluated there was concordance of results in ULs (p=0.143); 9 (33.3%) in LLs (p=0.125). SNA and the NDA in the ULs found agreement in 21 (77.8%); 11 (40.7%) (p=0.786) in the LLs.ConclusionThe three assessment instruments are specific and will hardly produce false positive tests. DPD can produce more false negatives than SNA. If there is an instrument to be chosen, it should be the SNA, since it is more sensitive, more accurate and has a less negative likelihood ratio. Neurodynamic tests were positive in 7.4% of individuals while there were still no changes in the SNA; afterwards, these changes appeared.

show abstract

“…In the previous article 2 we discussed two common features of diagnostics tests, sensitivity and specificity, which are important characteristics that describe the accuracy of a test. In this article, we focus on important features of a diagnostic test that help us understand how well a new test diagnoses a disease based on the results of the gold standard: PPV and NPV.…”

Section: Ppv and Npv Of Diagnostic Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 3 There is an easy way to calculate PPV and NPV, based on Bayes’ theorem, using previously reported results and taking into account the local disease prevalence. 2 …”

Section: Ppv and Npv Of Diagnostic Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%