BMJ 2002;324:824-826 ( 6 April )

Information in practice

Communicating accuracy of tests to general practitioners: a controlled study

Johann Steurer, director,  Joachim E Fischer, senior research fellow,  Lucas M Bachmann, research fellow,  Michael Koller, research fellow,  Gerben ter Riet, senior research fellow. 

Horten-Zentrum für praxisorientierte Forschung und Wissenstransfer, Universitätsspital Zürich, Bolleystrasse 40, Postfach Nord, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland

Correspondence to: J Steurer johann.steurer{at}dim.usz.ch

Objective: To assess the extent to which different forms of summarising diagnostic test information influence general practitioners' ability to estimate disease probabilities.
Design: Controlled questionnaire study.
Setting: Three Swiss conferences in continuous medical education.
Participants: 263 general practitioners.
Intervention: Questionnaire with multiple choice questions about terms of test accuracy and a clinical vignette with the results of a diagnostic test described in three different ways (test result only, test result plus test sensitivity and specificity, test result plus the positive likelihood ratio presented in plain language).
Main outcome measures: Doctors' knowledge and application of terms of test accuracy and estimation of disease probability in the clinical vignette.
Results: The correct definitions for sensitivity and predictive value were chosen by 76% and 61% of the doctors respectively, but only 22% chose the correct answer for the post-test probability of a positive screening test. In the clinical vignette doctors given the test result only overestimated its diagnostic value (median attributed likelihood ratio (aLR)=9.0, against 2.54 reported in the literature). Providing the scan's sensitivity and specificity reduced the overestimation (median aLR=6.0) but to a lesser extent than simple wording of the likelihood ratio (median aLR=3.0).
Conclusion: Most general practitioners recognised the correct definitions for sensitivity and positive predictive value but did not apply them correctly. Conveying test accuracy information in simple, non-technical language improved their ability to estimate disease probabilities accurately.

What is already known on this topic Many doctors confuse the sensitivity of clinical tests and their positive predictive value Doctors tend to overestimate information derived from such tests and underestimate information from a patient's clinical history Most primary research on diagnostic accuracy is reported using sensitivity and specificity or likelihood ratios What this study adds In a cohort of experienced Swiss general practitioners most were unable to interpret correctly numerical information on the diagnostic accuracy of a screening test When presented with a positive result alone they grossly overestimated its value Adding information on the test's sensitivity and specificity moderated these overestimates, and expressing the same numerical information as a positive likelihood ratio in simple, non-technical language brought the estimates still closer to their true values

---

© BMJ 2002
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Health professionals' and service users' interpretation of screening test results: experimental study

Ros Bramwell, Helen West, and Peter Salmon
BMJ 2006 333: 284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Simple presentation of test accuracy may lead to inflated disease probabilities

Lucas M Bachmann, Johann Steurer, and Gerben ter Riet
BMJ 2003 326: 393. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Phillips, B., Westwood, M. (2009). Testing our understanding of tests. Arch. Dis. Child. 94: 178-179 [Full text]  
• Sox, C M, Doctor, J N, Koepsell, T D, Christakis, D A (2009). The influence of types of decision support on physicians' decision making. Arch. Dis. Child. 94: 185-190 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Leeflang, M. M.G., Deeks, J. J., Gatsonis, C., Bossuyt, P. M.M., on behalf of the Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy, (2008). Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. ANN INTERN MED 149: 889-897 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Whiting, P., Harbord, R., de Salis, I., Egger, M., Sterne, J. (2008). Evidence-based diagnosis. J Health Serv Res Policy 13: 57-63 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Coste, J., Jourdain, P., Pouchot, J. (2006). A Gray Zone Assigned to Inconclusive Results of Quantitative Diagnostic Tests: Application to the Use of Brain Natriuretic Peptide for Diagnosis of Heart Failure in Acute Dyspneic Patients. Clin. Chem. 52: 2229-2235 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Bramwell, R., West, H., Salmon, P. (2006). Health professionals' and service users' interpretation of screening test results: experimental study. BMJ 333: 284- [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Sox, C. M., Koepsell, T. D., Doctor, J. N., Christakis, D. A. (2006). Pediatricians' Clinical Decision Making: Results of 2 Randomized Controlled Trials of Test Performance Characteristics. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 160: 487-492 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Puhan, M. A., Steurer, J., ter Riet, G. (2006). Presentation of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. ANN INTERN MED 144: 221-222 [Full text]  
• Lorenz, K. A., Ryan, G. W., Morton, S. C., Chan, K. S., Wang, S., Shekelle, P. G. (2005). A qualitative examination of primary care providers' and physician managers' uses and views of research evidence. Int J Qual Health Care 17: 409-414 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Puhan, M. A., Steurer, J., Bachmann, L. M., Riet, G. t. (2005). A Randomized Trial of Ways To Describe Test Accuracy: The Effect on Physicians' Post-Test Probability Estimates. ANN INTERN MED 143: 184-189 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Ghosh, A.K., Ghosh, K., Erwin, P.J. (2004). Do medical students and physicians understand probability?. QJM 97: 53-55 [Full text]  
• Foy, R, Warner, P (2003). About time: diagnostic guidelines that help clinicians. Qual Saf Health Care 12: 205-209 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Bachmann, L. M, Steurer, J., ter Riet, G. (2003). Simple presentation of test accuracy may lead to inflated disease probabilities. BMJ 326: 393-393 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

The positive predictive value can be of more use to GPs than the likelihood ratio

Andrew F Polmear
bmj.com, 8 Apr 2002 [Full text]

Communicating calculation of posttest probability using likelihood ratio in one step

Kameshwar Prasad
bmj.com, 14 Apr 2002 [Full text]

Devising a management algorithm for stable angina

Michelle Greiver
bmj.com, 21 Apr 2002 [Full text]

Understanding Probability Information

Helen M Adams, et al.
bmj.com, 27 Jul 2002 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more >>