Post-test probability is more poorly estimated for negative than positive test results in some studies¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? One study found correct reasoning for positive test results but poor post-test probability estimation for negative test results, and one study found 56% of participants estimated post-test probability higher than pretest for a negative result. → 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 of studies comparing positive and negative test result interpretation. The review reports one study found correct reasoning for positive results but poor estimation for negative results, and the negative-result-only study found 56% of participants estimated post-test probability higher than pretest probability.

"One study found that correct reasoning was applied for positive test results but that post-test probability was poorly estimated for negative test results."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Presenting accuracy data as natural frequencies rather than probabilities improves post-test probability estimation and speed of calculations — related
• Health professionals' estimation of post-test probability is generally poor with a tendency to overestimation — a broader claim this one bears on
• Evidence is mixed on whether likelihood ratio formats yield more accurate post-test probability estimates than sensitivity and specificity — related