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
Does iron deficiency without anaemia cause fatigue and what is the reason behind it?
Published 26 May 2012
Re: Histology of Pilar Cysts - a counsel of perfection?
Published 26 May 2012
Re: David Southall: anatomy of a wrecked career
Published 26 May 2012
Re: The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality
Published 26 May 2012
Re: Five years after baby Peter
Published 26 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
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