<sigh> If only you had advised a certain eminent paediatrician on
statistics.
Best wishes
Rowley.
-----Original Message-----
From: Accident and Emergency Academic List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Coats Tim - Professor of
Emergency Medicine
Sent: 01 March 2006 13:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: SAH
Adrian,
I think that you have confused the meaning of sensitivity. A 98% sensitivity
certainly does not mean that 1 in 50 of patients with a negative scan will
none the less have an SAH. I think that you have also confused the meaning
of a likelihood ratio. A ratio of 0.02 certainly does not mean that 1 in 50
of patients with a negative scan will none the less have an SAH.
A 98% sensitivity means the 98% of patients WITH SAH will have a positive
scan. This is a completely useless figure in patient decision making. We
don't want to know the proportion of patients WITH THE DISEASE that have a
positive test. As clinicians we want to know the proportion of patients WITH
A NEGATIVE scan that hve the disease.
Sensitivity and specificity are useless in interpreting the results of a
test.
We need to use the negative predictive value (my patient has a negative
test, in what proportion does this really mean that they don't have the
disease) and the positive predictive value (my patient has a positive test,
in what proportion does this mean that they have the disease).
For CT scanning (assuming the population prevelance of 5%): Positive
predictive value is 99.8% (ie if CT is positive I can say that 99.8% of
patients actually have SAH) Negative predictive value is 99.9% (ie. if the
CT is negative only 0.1% of patients actually has an SAH) Sensitivity is 98%
Specificity is nearly 100%
If I want to tailor this to an individual patient (who may have a risk that
I judge is more or less than the population average of 5%) I can use the
likelihood ratio to work out a more individual calculation.
BOTTOM LINE: If the CT scan is negative 0.1% of patients will have an SAH
(ie 1 in 1000).
SECOND BOTTOM LINE: Sensitivity and specificity are very misleading ways of
describing a diagnostic test. I have no idea why they are so often quoted.
I feel a headache coming on, wait a minute, whats the probability......
Tim.
-----Original Message-----
From: Accident and Emergency Academic List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Adrian Fogarty
Sent: 01 March 2006 01:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: SAH
No, the other way round; I was talking patients while you were talking
populations, I think! (see below)
My definition of likelihood ratio: well, I was "paraphrasing" really - and
omitted the denominator! I understand negative likelihood ratio to be "the
probability of an individual with the condition having a negative test -
over - the probability of an individual without the condition having a
negative test". Now, since the latter (the denominator) is very close to
unity, I have taken the liberty of omitting it for clarity's sake. Hence,
when I'm told the negative likelihood ratio of CT for SAH is 0.02, that
tells me that 1 in 50 of patients with a negative scan will nonetheless have
an SAH.
Yes, I gather you can also express this as (1-sens)/spec as you suggest, but
it can be put into words; I work better with words you might have noticed!
Again, here we have a highly sensitive test (in the order of 95-98%
depending on the scanner etc) but an extremely specific test (you don't
often see a bleed that's not there!). So again, you can virtually omit the
denominator and you're left with (1-sens) which comes back to the 0.02
figure (1-0.98) or 1 in 50.
I think our difficulty - as you've alluded - is that you're "applying" this
to a 5% pre-test probability from your historical population. But I have
some difficulty with this, as you only know they're 5% after their scan.
Surely before you scan an individual you must "subconsciously" think they're
much higher risk than 5%? And surely the patient thinks they're "near 100%"
until proven otherwise, and so does their physician who's ordering the scan?
They're thinking to themselves: "if I've got SAH, what are the chances this
test will miss it?". And the answer's 0.02 x 100 = 2 which is 1 in 50.
Hence, why would they then refuse an LP based on a 1-in-50 chance they've
still got SAH?
But I do see your broader point - and herein lies the crux of the matter -
which is to take into account all the true negatives mixed in there with
that one true SAH that your scan's missed. So fine, if your population only
has a yield of, say, 50 positive scans per 1000 patients, then you're going
to have 950 patients left over anxious for a diagnosis, yet we know only 1
of those is a true positive (1 in 50). That means we need 950 LPs to find
that one positive SAH. And that's the very compelling population argument! I
suppose it all comes down to the remarkably low yield of 5% in your
population which rather surprised me. In other words, if we were working in
a population where, say, 50% of our scans were positive, then you'd have to
LP the rest, as 1 in 50 of them would have SAH.
So there goes my rather simplistic view of stats...it gets me into all sorts
of trouble you know.
AF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Coats Tim - Professor of Emergency Medicine"
<[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: SAH
Adrian,
We are not seeing eye to eye on this as I am thinking about the
probabilities for an indivdual patient and I wonder if you are thinking
about probabilities in population terms.
The negative likelihood ratio of 0.02 is a property of the test and is the
same for all individuals (and is independent of the prevelance of the
disease in the population).
The pre-test probability is what you use clinical skill to attach to an
individual patient. An individual patient will not have the 'population
average' pre-test probability - you will probably find more or less worrying
features in their history. This could be from nearly 0% (here is some
paracetamol bye bye) to nearly 100%(you have a SAH).
The population prevelance (the 0.05 Sally Clarke figure) is not relevant
here (in calculating the likelihood ratio the prevelance in the population
is present on both sides of the equation and therefore cancels out).
I don't really agree with your definition of Likelihood ratio as "the
probability of an individual with the condition having a negative test".
LR-ve = (1-sens)/spec. I am not sure that I can put this into words - it is
a mathematical number which cannot really be equated to the sort of terms
that you are using.
Tim.
-----Original Message-----
From: Accident and Emergency Academic List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Adrian Fogarty
Sent: 28 February 2006 10:38
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: SAH
But I still think you're overegging it, doing a "Sally Clark" as it were.
First of all, your whole premise of the pretest probability of 5% is based
on CT results. Nevertheless, let's accept for a moment that of a LASH
population (see, you've got me doing it now!), 5% will end up having the
target disease, so 5% is your pretest probability. But then you're stating
that the negative likelihood ratio for CT is 0.02. The very definition of
negative likelihood ratio is tantamount to "the probability of an individual
with the condition having a negative test" so there's no need to factor the
0.02 by 0.05, if the figure of 0.02 has already been established as it were.
Yes, by all means factor in the negative likelihood ratio of LP and factor
that by 0.02, but that will give you those patients who have SAH but are
negative for both CT and LP. And yes they will indeed be rare, but that's
not who we're interested in here; we're interested in the vastly greater
number who will be LP positive after CT negative.
Maybe I'm wrong but if Tim's saying that only 1 in a 1000 negative CTs end
up having SAH then maybe PB's right, we shouldn't be doing LPs at all. But
from my understanding, the figures are much higher than 1 in 1000. Am I
suffering from mental entrenchment syndrome?
AF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Webster" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: SAH
> >
>> And Tim, you're a better statistician (and neurosurgeon) than me,
>> I've no doubt, but I don't quite follow your maths approach here. If
>> the negative likelihood ratio of CT for SAH is 0.02, that basically
>> means that of all the negative CTs we get (for LASH!), 1 in 50 of
>> those patients will still have
>> an SAH, doesn't it? (correct me if I'm wrong here...) It seems to me that
>> you're citing a pretest probability of 5% to the scan-clear patients
>> (which
>> is fair enough), but you're then factoring in the negative likelihood
>> ratio
>> of CT testing itself, giving an incredible 1-in-1000 result. That's not
>> rational to my mind. You're citing a pretest probability based on the
>> results of the same test, a circular argument if you like. Surely it
>> would
>> be more appropriate to take that pre-test probability and then factor in
>> the
>> positive likelihood ratio of LP wouldn't it? What I'm saying is, for
>> every
>> 50 patients you get coming out of the CT with a clear scan, you're going
>> to
>> have one who actually has SAH and that one is very likely to be picked up
>> by
>> the subsequent LP (assuming LP is fairly sensitive when done at the
>> correct
>> time etc). So it can't be 1 in a 1000, it's got to be closer to 1 in 50,
>> doesn't it? (which might explain why PB's had two of them in the last few
>> years...)
> No Tim is saying before we do any tests ourselves the pretest
> probability of the patient having a SAH is 5%. With a negative CT the
> likelihood ratio of 0.02 the post test probability is 0.1% or 1 in a
> 1000. Which is why you need to do 1 in 1000 lp's to find a positive LP
>
> Andy Webster
This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and /
or privileged information and is intended for the exclusive use of the
addressee(s) printed above. If you are not the addressee(s), any
unauthorised review, disclosure, reproduction, other dissemination or use of
this e-mail, or taking of any action in reliance upon the information
contained herein, is strictly prohibited. If this e-mail has been sent to
you in error, please return to the sender. No guarantee can be given that
the contents of this email are virus free - The University Hospitals of
Leicester NHS Trust cannot be held responsible for any failure by the
recipient(s) to test for viruses before opening any attachments. The
information contained in this e-mail may be the subject of public disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 - unless legally exempt from
disclosure, the confidentiality of this e-mail and your reply cannot be
guaranteed. Copyright in this email and any attachments created by us
remains vested in the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust.
This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and /
or privileged information and is intended for the exclusive use of the
addressee(s) printed above. If you are not the addressee(s), any
unauthorised review, disclosure, reproduction, other dissemination or use of
this e-mail, or taking of any action in reliance upon the information
contained herein, is strictly prohibited. If this e-mail has been sent to
you in error, please return to the sender. No guarantee can be given that
the contents of this email are virus free - The University Hospitals of
Leicester NHS Trust cannot be held responsible for any failure by the
recipient(s) to test for viruses before opening any attachments. The
information contained in this e-mail may be the subject of public disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 - unless legally exempt from
disclosure, the confidentiality of this e-mail and your reply cannot be
guaranteed. Copyright in this email and any attachments created by us
remains vested in the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust.
|
