Academic
Publications
Does Prevalence Matter to Physicians in Estimating Posttest Probability of Disease? A Randomized Trial

Does Prevalence Matter to Physicians in Estimating Posttest Probability of Disease? A Randomized Trial,10.1007/s11606-010-1540-5,Journal of General In

Does Prevalence Matter to Physicians in Estimating Posttest Probability of Disease? A Randomized Trial   (Citations: 2)
BibTex | RIS | RefWorks Download
BACKGROUND  The probability of a disease following a diagnostic test depends on the sensitivity and specificity of the test, but also on the prevalence of the disease in the population of interest (or pre-test probability). How physicians use this information is not well known. OBJECTIVE  To assess whether physicians correctly estimate post-test probability according to various levels of prevalence and explore this skill across respondent groups. DESIGN  Randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS  Population-based sample of 1,361 physicians of all clinical specialties. INTERVENTION  We described a scenario of a highly accurate screening test (sensitivity 99% and specificity 99%) in which we randomly manipulated the prevalence of the disease (1%, 2%, 10%, 25%, 95%, or no information). MAIN MEASURES  We asked physicians to estimate the probability of disease following a positive test (categorized as <60%, 60–79%, 80–94%, 95–99.9%, and >99.9%). Each answer was correct for a different version of the scenario, and no answer was possible in the “no information” scenario. We estimated the proportion of physicians proficient in assessing post-test probability as the proportion of correct answers beyond the distribution of answers attributable to guessing. KEY RESULTS  Most respondents in each of the six groups (67%–82%) selected a post-test probability of 95–99.9%, regardless of the prevalence of disease and even when no information on prevalence was provided. This answer was correct only for a prevalence of 25%. We estimated that 9.1% (95% CI 6.0–14.0) of respondents knew how to assess correctly the post-test probability. This proportion did not vary with clinical experience or practice setting. CONCLUSIONS  Most physicians do not take into account the prevalence of disease when interpreting a positive test result. This may cause unnecessary testing and diagnostic errors.
Journal: Journal of General Internal Medicine - J GEN INTERN MED , vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 373-378, 2011
Cumulative Annual
View Publication
The following links allow you to view full publications. These links are maintained by other sources not affiliated with Microsoft Academic Search.
Sort by: