Only a minority of health professionals can define likelihood ratios, predictive values and specificity when asked to verbalise definitions¶

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? Only 17% of healthcare professionals could define LR+ compared with 76% sensitivity and 80% specificity in one study, and in another only 1/13 could define PPV and 0/13 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

Narrative synthesis reporting a single-group study comparing definitions of sensitivity, specificity and LRs among healthcare professionals. The review reports that only 17% could define LR+ compared with 76% sensitivity and 80% specificity, and a GP interview study found only 1/13 could define PPV and 0/13 specificity.

"One study comparing sensitivity, specificity and LRs found only 17% of healthcare professionals could define LR+ compared with 76% sensitivity and 80% specificity."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Health professionals are less likely to identify the correct definition of likelihood ratios than of sensitivity and specificity — related
• Doctors' self-ratings of understanding overestimate their actual ability to define and use accuracy measures — related
• Evidence is mixed on whether likelihood ratio formats yield more accurate post-test probability estimates than sensitivity and specificity — related