Transcript Slide 1
Diagnosis Articles
Much Thanks to
:
Rob Hayward & Tanya Voth, CCHE
Outline
• Philosophy of Diagnosis: – Probability of disease – Test and treatment thresholds • ANALYZING STUDIES • Validity: – Gold (reference) standard • Numbers: – Sensitivity, Specificity, Likelihood ratio • Applicability: – Observer agreement, Kappa
Philosophy of Diagnosis?
• Pre-test Probability – The probability that a disease is present before doing a test. – A clinical best guess • Post-test Probability – The probability that a disease is present after doing a test – a combination of clinical best guess & test result.
Philosophy of Diagnosis?
•When Tests are good: Target Negative (Normal) Target Positive (Severely ill) Very Normal
B A Test results
Very Abnormal
Philosophy of Diagnosis?
•When Tests aren’t so good: Target Positive Target Negative Very Normal
4 1
Very Abnormal
Test result (LR = 1) Test result (LR = 4)
EBM TP: Diagnostic Tests
• How good are: – Phalen’s Test, – Shifting Dullness, – Patient Report of Fever, – Interstitial Edema on C-Xray, – Ottawa Ankle Rules – Canadian C-Spine Rules vs NEXUS.
Users Guides: Diagnosis
Are the results valid?
•Did clinicians face diagnostic uncertainty? – Were subjects drawn from a common group in which it is not known whether the condition of interest is present or absent? – E.g First CEA studies used known bowel cancer patients 1 1. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1969; 64: 161-7
Are the Results Valid
Was an acceptable gold standard used?
• Imagine a study investigating WBC for Appendicitis that use U/S for the gold standard?
Are the results valid?
•
The test being studied and the gold standard should be completely separate.
Studied
Are the results valid?
•
The test being studied and the gold standard should be completely separate?
1) Were the test and gold standard independent?
• A study looking at Serum Amylase for Pancreatitis that used a gold standard made of a combination of tests including serum amylase.
1 2) Were the test & gold standard results assessed blindly?
• Imagine a study investigating Ottawa Ankle Rules, in which the radiologist was told the results of the Ankle rules before reading the films.
1. NEJM 1997; 336: 1788-93
Are the results valid?
• Did test being studied effect if gold standard was done?
– Was a different gold standard applied to subjects testing negative?
– E.g. When evaluating VQ scans for PE, those with normal scans often did not go on the gold standard (pulmonary angiography).
1 – In these cases (frequent) we need to be assured of a reasonable back-up gold standard. 1 JAMA 1990; 263:2753-59.
Users Guides: Diagnosis
EBM Tool for Diagnostic Tests Should:
• Tell if a symptom, sign or test is useful • Useful in which way: – Screening (Ruling out) – Making a Diagnosis (Ruling in) • Help us determine the probability of a disease
EBM Diagnostic test Standards
• Sensitivity • SNOUT –
S
ensitive tests if
N
egative rule
OUT
disease. • Specificity • SPIN –
S
pecific tests if
P
ositive rule
IN
disease • Helpful to sort out if a test is good for Screening (Ruling out) or Diagnosis (Ruling in)
LR Advantage
• LR’s – Take into account all elements (false positives/negatives and true positives/negatives) – Have Criteria for Usefulness of each Test.
– Can be used over a Range of Test Results (e.g. WBC) – Can calculate the actual Likelihood of a disease
Key Concept
• Likelihood Ratio: Determine the
usefulness
of tests. •
(Positive) Likelihood Ratios >1 :
• ↑ Likelihood Ratio (1 - ∞) = ↑ likelihood of disease • Make the diagnosis (Rule in disease) •
(Negative) Likelihood Ratio <1:
• ↓ Likelihood Ratio (1 – 0) = ↓ likelihood of disease • Exclude the diagnosis (Rule out disease)
What does the LR mean?
(Criteria for Usefulness)
LR Increase probability Decrease probability Excellent Good Moderate/Small Poor > 10 5-10 2-5 1-2 < 0.1
0.2-0.1
0.2-0.5
0.5 - 1
How do I use the LR?
Nomogram LR calculator
What are the results?
• What range of likelihood ratios were associated with the range of possible test results?
– Ferritin to detect Fe deficiency (GS = bone marrow)
Serum Ferritin
Positive (< 45) Negative (>45)
Iron Deficient Patients
70 15
Sensitivity = 82% Specificity = 90% LR + = 8.2
LR - = 0.2
Not Iron Deficient
15 135
What are the results?
• What range of likelihood ratios were associated with the range of possible test results?
– Ferritin to detect Fe deficiency (GS = bone marrow)
Serum Ferritin
< 18 19 – 45 46 – 100 > 100
Total patients Iron Deficient Patients
47 23 7 8
85 Not Iron Deficient
2 13 27 108
150
What are the results?
• What range of likelihood ratios were associated with the range of possible test results?
– Ferritin to detect Fe deficiency (GS = bone marrow)
Serum Ferritin Iron Deficient Patients L 1 Not Iron Deficient L 2 LR = L 1 /L 2 < 18 19 – 45 46 – 100 > 100 47 23 7 8 47/85= 0.553
23/85= 0.271
7/85= 0.082
8/85= 0.094
2 13 27 108 2/150= 0.013
13/150= 0.086
27/150= 0.180
108/150= 0.720
42.5
3.15
0.46
0.13
Total patients 85 150
Applying LR: Examples
• A 30 y.o. woman complaining of fatigue and vague MDD Sx (Normal periods).
– Guess 20% anemia before test.
– Ferritin = 12, (LR = 42.5) • Anemia = 90% • Same woman, – Ferritin =108, (LR = 0.13) • Anemia = 2%
LR Examples
• Phalen Test (Carpal Tunnel): • LR= 1.3 • Shifting Dullness (Ascites): • LR= 2.3
• Patient Reporting Fever (>38 Temp): • LR = 4.9
• Interstitial Edema on Chest X-Ray (CHF): • LR= 12.7
• Ottawa Ankle Rules (Ankle #): • -ve LR = 0.08
• Canadian C-Spine Rules (C-spine #): • -ve LR= 0.013. (vs NEXUS –ve LR = 0.25) JAMA 2000; 283: 3110-7. J Gen Intern Med 1988: 423-8. Ann Emerg Med 1996: 27: 693-5. Am J Med 2004; 116: 363-8. BMJ 2003; 326: 417. NEJM 2003; 349: 2510-8.
Math Diagnostic Tests: Summary
• Likelihood Ratios are the best we have • Tell if a symptom, sign or test is useful • Help us determine the probability of a diagnosis
Users Guides: Diagnosis
Apply to patient care?
• Is the test and its interpretation reproducible (Kappa)?
• Is the test result the same when reapplied by the same observer (intra-observer variability)?
• Do different observers agree about the test result (inter-observer variability)?
• Examples – Specialist doing JVP = 0.42, – Specialist assessing DM retinopathy from photograph = 0.55
– Interpreting mammogram = 0.67
Greenhalgh T. How to Read a Paper (The basics of evidence based medicine). 2001
Apply to patient care?
• Are the results applicable to the patient in my practice?
-Are the patients in the study like mine.
Apply to patient care?
• Will the results change my management strategy?
– Are the test LRs high or low enough to shift post-test probability across a test or treatment threshold?
Apply to patient care?
• Will patients be better off as a result of the test?
– Will the anticipated changes do more good than harm?
– Effect of clinically insignificant disease
Summary
•
Key concepts:
Reference Standard
– You cannot decide if a test works unless you have a “gold standard”.
Likelihood Ratio
– To determined the utility of a test, Find how much a given result will shift the Likelihood of a Diagnosis.
Who cares?
– Think about the “ignore” and “act” thresholds and if the test moves you from uncertainty into either zone.
The End
Much Thanks to
:
Rob Hayward & Tanya Voth, CCHE