Health professionals are less likely to identify the correct definition of likelihood ratios than of sensitivity and specificity¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2020: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Health professionals were less likely to identify the correct definition of likelihood ratios than of sensitivity and specificity. → Whiting Penny F 2015

Evidence¶

Whiting Penny F 2015¶

Whiting Penny F, Davenport Clare, Jameson Catherine, Burke Margaret, Sterne Jonathan A C, Hyde Chris, Ben-Shlomo Yoav. (2015). How well do health professionals interpret diagnostic information? A systematic review. BMJ Open. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4521525/

q2 · i? · review · r3

Systematic review narrative synthesis of six single-group studies assessing accuracy-definition ability. The review reports that health professionals were less likely to identify the correct definition of likelihood ratios than of sensitivity and specificity, with proportions correctly identifying sensitivity ranging from 76% to 88% and specificity from 80% to 88%.

"6 assessed ability to define accuracy metrics: health professionals were less likely to identify the correct definition of likelihood ratios than of sensitivity and specificity."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Only a minority of health professionals can define likelihood ratios, predictive values and specificity when asked to verbalise definitions — related
• Evidence is mixed on whether likelihood ratio formats yield more accurate post-test probability estimates than sensitivity and specificity — related
• Doctors' self-ratings of understanding overestimate their actual ability to define and use accuracy measures — related