Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

## allstat@jiscmail.ac.uk

#### View:

 Message: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] By Topic: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] By Author: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] Font: Proportional Font

#### Options

Subject:

Negative and Positive Predictive Values derivation - your views

From:

Date:

Wed, 8 Aug 2018 11:47:25 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

 text/plain (132 lines)
 ```Hello everyone, I wonder if you have any views on the following? We shall consider the following decision matrix which crosstabulates positive and negative diagnostic test results and positive and negative observed results: Observed Predicted Event (+) Non Event (-) Event (+) a b Non Event (-) c d We define: Total = n = a+b+c+d P=Prevalence = (a+c)/n Sensitivity = a/(a+c) Specificity = d/(b+d) We also define PPV=a/(a+b) (1) NPV = d/(c+d) (2) PPV can also be defined: (Sensitivity x P) / ((Sensitivity x P) + ((1-Specificity)x(1-P))) (3) NPV can also be defined (Specificityx(1-P))/( (Specificity x (1-P)) + (P x(1-Sensitivity))) (4) Now if P in (3) and (4) is (a+c)/n , then (3) and (4) are equivalent to (1) and (2) respectively. However, what if the real prevalence of the disease (in the population) does not equal (a+c)/n ? i.e. if the value of (a+c)/n in our *study* does not equal the real pre-test probability (of the disease). Am I correct in thinking that we should always use formulas (3) and (4) to calculate PPV and NPV and input P as the real (population) prevalence of the disease (from literature) (rather than assuming that (a+c)/n is an accurate estimate of the real population prevalence of the disease)? In one document I read that "NPV and PPV should only be used if the ratio of the number of patients in the disease group and the number of patients in the healthy control group used to establish the NPV and PPV is equivalent to the prevalence of the diseases in the studied population, or, in case two disease groups are compared, if the ratio of the number of patients in disease group 1 and the number of patients in disease group 2 is equivalent to the ratio of the prevalences of the two diseases studied". I am not clear as to the reasoning behind this and I'd appreciate any views. Many thanks, in advance, for your opinion on these issues. All the best, Kim Dr Kim Pearce PhD, CStat, Fellow HEA Senior Statistician Faculty of Medical Sciences Graduate School Room 3.14 3rd Floor Ridley Building 1 Newcastle University Queen Victoria Road Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU Tel: (0044) (0)191 208 8142 You may leave the list at any time by sending the command SIGNOFF allstat to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.```