2006
DOI: 10.1016/s0009-739x(06)70871-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pruebas diagnósticas: nociones básicas para su correcta interpretación y uso

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0
6

Year Published

2008
2008
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
3
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…Regarding sensitivity and specificity, it should be taken into account that these aspects are a priori intrinsic properties or probabilities of the tests that are not fully useful when applied in a clinical setting (i.e., they do not provide the certainty with which a clinician could determine whether a positive or negative result comes from an infected or healthy person) [ 34 ]. This information can be obtained using predictive values, which are the most useful clinical parameters [ 35 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regarding sensitivity and specificity, it should be taken into account that these aspects are a priori intrinsic properties or probabilities of the tests that are not fully useful when applied in a clinical setting (i.e., they do not provide the certainty with which a clinician could determine whether a positive or negative result comes from an infected or healthy person) [ 34 ]. This information can be obtained using predictive values, which are the most useful clinical parameters [ 35 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…En esos estudios la eficiencia del diagnóstico oscila entre 76 y 94 %; los valores de eficiencia superiores al 50 %, como el alcanzado en este trabajo, indican que la probabilidad de diagnosticar gestación exitosamente es significativamente mayor que el obtenido mediante el azar; entre más cercanos sean al 100 %, son más confiables [34].…”
Section: Resultados Y Discusiónunclassified
“…The results published by Carbonero [ 4 ] differ from those obtained in this study, since the authors took sensitivity and specificity values provided by the manufacturer. It is currently known that these values vary due to external factors, as well as according to the field in which they are applied [ 32 , 50 , 51 , 52 ]. This variation is mainly due to the differences between reference populations, sampling strategies that have been used for the validation procedure, technical variation of the tests (distinct laboratories), competence of the laboratory, choice of gold standard and cut-off value for interpretation and management of results, and the sanitary conditions of the populations with respect to other conditions [ 53 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The specificity values of the tests that include unvaccinated animals are higher than in populations where animals have received vaccination as well as in the general sampling (with and without vaccination). This is due to the fact that the number of false positives decreases by doing the more specific tests [ 51 ]. However, the specificity does not reach 100%, since false positives may also be due to the probable presence of cross reactions such as Yersinia enterocolitica O: 9, Escherichia coli O: 157, Salmonella group N (O: 30), Vibrio cholerae O1 infections, Scherichia hermani , or Stenotrophomonas maltophilia [ 67 , 68 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%