- N J Wald, professor (n.j.wald@mds.qmw.ac.uk)a,
- A K Hackshaw, lecturera,
- C D Frost, senior lecturerb
- a Department of Environmental and Preventive Medicine, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London EC1M 6BQ
- b Medical Statistics Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT
- Correspondence to: N J Wald
- Accepted 19 July 1999
One of the most important areas of medical inquiry is the identification of risk factors for specific disorders. Such research is usually aimed at discovering new causes of a disease, but risk factors can also be used as screening tests. The fact that a risk factor must be very strongly associated with a disorder if it is to be a worthwhile screening test is not widely recognised. If this were better understood, fewer risk factors would be proposed unnecessarily as screening tests. Serum cholesterol measurement, for example, would probably never have been considered seriously as a screening test for ischaemic heart disease. Although a high cholesterol concentration is a strong risk factor for ischaemic heart disease in aetiological terms, the association is not sufficiently strong for it to be used as a screening test—in practice, its screening performance is poor.1
In this article we specify the quantitative relation between risk factors and screening tests and show how strongly a risk factor needs to be associated with a disease before it is likely to be a useful screening test. For simplicity, we consider only risk factors with a Gaussian distribution, though the general principles we present can be applied to all frequency distributions.
Summary points
To be a worthwhile screening test, a risk factor must be strongly associated with a disorder
The strength of association between a risk factor and a disorder can be quantified by the relative risk or relative odds (odds ratio)
A risk factor can also be considered as a screening test, and its association with the disorder can be quantified as the detection rate for a specified false positive rate
There is a direct numerical equivalence between the relative odds and the detection rate for specified false positive rate that does not depend on the incidence or prevalence …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012