In the issue of 11 October 1997 (p 942) we published a correction to this article by Trisha Greenhalgh (30 August, p 540-3). The definition of the negative likelihood ratio was misleading in both the original article and the correction. The negative likelihood ratio is defined by the equation (1-sensitivity)/specificity, as stated in the original article, and addresses the question, “How much more or less likely is a negative result to be found in a person with, as opposed to without, the condition?”
In addition, an author's error occurred in the box on p 542 in the same article; the fraction for the negative predictive value should have been 966/987=97.8% [not 966/973=97.8%].







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Bringing Nightingale down to size
Published 29 May 2012
Re: Avoid antimuscarinic drugs in people with dementia
Published 29 May 2012
Re: Strengthening primary health care: Related to the integration of medical training, community service need and health administration
Published 29 May 2012
Re: Strengthening primary health care: Related to the integration of medical training, community service need and health administration
Published 29 May 2012
Health Literacy: Patient involvement and engagement with healthcare
Published 29 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27