Health professionals' estimation of post-test probability is generally poor with a tendency to overestimation¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr3·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¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Post-test probability estimation was generally poor with a tendency to overestimation; only two studies found evidence of successful Bayesian reasoning. → Whiting Penny F 2015
q2 i? The proportion of participants correctly estimating post-test probability varied from 0% to 61% across thirteen studies. → 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 twenty-two studies assessing Bayesian reasoning among health professionals. The review reports post-test estimation was generally poor with a tendency to overestimation, and across thirteen studies the proportion correctly estimating post-test probability varied from 0% to 61%.
"Post-test estimation of probability was generally poor with a tendency to overestimation; only two studies found some evidence of successful application of Bayesian reasoning."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Post-test probability is more poorly estimated for negative than positive test results in some studies — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Clinical experience shows inconsistent effects on Bayesian reasoning, with research experience helping and newly qualified doctors sometimes more accurate — related
- Evidence is mixed on whether likelihood ratio formats yield more accurate post-test probability estimates than sensitivity and specificity — related
- Presenting accuracy data as natural frequencies rather than probabilities improves post-test probability estimation and speed of calculations — related
- Natural frequencies combined with graphical aids produced the highest proportion of correct post-test probability estimates in one RCT — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.