Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

How to appraise a diagnostic test.

Mohit Bhandari1, Gordon H Guyatt

  • 1Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University Health Sciences Center, McMaster University, Room 2c12, 1200 Main Street West, L8N 3Z5, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. bhamdam@mcmaster.ca

World Journal of Surgery
|April 14, 2005
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

GRADE guidelines: 20. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences-inconsistency, imprecision, and other domains.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2018
Same author

Applying GRADE to a network meta-analysis of antidepressants led to more conservative conclusions.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2018
Same author

Corrigendum to "Advances in the GRADE approach to rate the certainty in estimates from a network meta-analysis" [J Clin Epidemiol 2018;93:36-44].

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2018
Same author

Debating the opioid guidelines: corrections.

Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien·2018
Same author

Debating the opioid guidelines: context.

Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien·2018
Same author

Patient Values and Preferences Regarding Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review.

Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.)·2018
Same journal

Mapping Plastic Reconstructive Surgical Needs and Access Barriers in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Scoping Review.

World journal of surgery·2026
Same journal

Correction to "Guidelines for Essential Trauma Care: Second Edition (2026)".

World journal of surgery·2026
Same journal

Assessing the Burden of Operatively Managed Extremity Fractures in Malawi: A Tale of Two Tertiary Hospitals.

World journal of surgery·2026
Same journal

The Impact of Obesity on Intraoperative, Oncological, and Postoperative Endpoints in Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy.

World journal of surgery·2026
Same journal

Prediction Models for Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis in Clinically Node-Negative Breast Cancer: Validation of Existing Nomograms, Model Development, and Ensemble Evaluation.

World journal of surgery·2026
Same journal

Indicators for Monitoring Recovery From Surgery to Discharge Using Accelerometer in Patients With Esophageal Cancer.

World journal of surgery·2026
See all related articles

This guide helps clinicians critically evaluate diagnostic test studies. Understanding likelihood ratios, sensitivity, and specificity improves diagnostic accuracy for target conditions.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Diagnostics
  • Clinical Epidemiology

Background:

  • Clinicians face challenges in diagnosing conditions using available tests.
  • Assessing the validity of diagnostic test studies is crucial for accurate patient management.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To provide guidance for critically appraising diagnostic test studies.
  • To highlight the importance of likelihood ratios over sensitivity and specificity for clinical decision-making.

Main Methods:

  • Discussion of key elements in diagnostic test study validity: patient selection and reference standard application.
  • Explanation of likelihood ratios for updating pretest to posttest probability.
  • Comparison of likelihood ratios with sensitivity and specificity.

Main Results:

Related Experiment Videos

  • Likelihood ratios are superior to sensitivity and specificity in quantifying the impact of a test result on diagnostic probability.
  • Commonly reported metrics like sensitivity and specificity can be less clinically useful.

Conclusions:

  • Surgeons and clinicians can use these principles to critically assess diagnostic test literature.
  • Improved understanding of diagnostic test characteristics leads to better clinical decisions and patient care.