CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,882Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding diagnostic tests 3: receiver operating characteristic curves

Akobeng, Anthony K·2007·Acta Paediatrica
DOI 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.00178.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The results of many clinical tests are quantitative and are provided on a continuous scale. To help decide the presence or absence of disease, a cut‐off point for ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’ is chosen. The sensitivity and specificity of a test vary according to the level that is chosen as the cut‐off point. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, a graphical technique for describing and comparing the accuracy of diagnostic tests, is obtained by plotting the sensitivity of a test on the y axis against 1‐specificity on the x axis. Two methods commonly used to establish the optimal cut‐off point include the point on the ROC curve closest to (0, 1) and the Youden index. The area under the ROC curve provides a measure of the overall performance of a diagnostic test. In this paper, the author explains how the ROC curve can be used to select optimal cut‐off points for a test result, to assess the diagnostic accuracy of a test, and to compare the usefulness of tests. Conclusion: The ROC curve is obtained by calculating the sensitivity and specificity of a test at every possible cut‐off point, and plotting sensitivity against 1‐specificity. The curve may be used to select optimal cut‐off values for a test result, to assess the diagnostic accuracy of a test, and to compare the usefulness of different tests.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.00178.x

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Akobeng AK, Understanding diagnostic tests 2: using likelihood ratios to estimate probability of disease, Acta Paediatr

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 1,001–1,001 of 1,001

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Akobeng, A. K.
Corresponding author
Akobeng, Anthony K
ORCID
Akobeng, Anthony K
Venue
Acta Paediatrica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-03-21
Volume
96
Issue
5
Pages
644-647
ISSN
  • 0365-1436 (ISSN-L)
  • 0803-5253
  • 1651-2227
DOI
10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.00178.x
OpenAlex
W2073887351
Cited by
1,882
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 95 · 2024: 135 · 2023: 138 · 2022: 167 · 2021: 156 · 2020: 131 · 2019: 116 · 2018: 102 · 2017: 120 · 2016: 113 · 2015: 117 · 2014: 117 · 2013: 98 · 2012: 76
FWCI
29.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Acta Paediatrica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Medical Laboratory Technology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
receiver operating characteristic, diagnostic accuracy, cut-point selection, sensitivity, specificity, Youden index, area under the ROC curve, diagnostic test comparison
MeSH terms
C-Reactive Protein, Calcitonin, Humans, Leukocyte Count, Protein Precursors, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Shock, Septic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review