The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding diagnostic tests 2: likelihood ratios, pre‐ and post‐test probabilities and their use in clinical practice
Open accessAbstract
The sensitivity and specificity of a test cannot be used to estimate probability of disease in individual patients. They can, however, be combined into a single measure called the likelihood ratio which is, clinically, more useful than sensitivity or specificity. Likelihood ratios provide a summary of how many times more (or less) likely patients with a disease are to have a particular result than patients without the disease. Using the principles of the Bayes theorem, likelihood ratios can be used in conjunction with pre‐test probability of disease to estimate an individual's post‐test probability of disease, that is his or her chance of having disease once the result of a test is known. The Fagan's nomogram is a graphical tool which, in routine clinical practice, allows one to combine the likelihood ratio of a test with a patient's pre‐test probability of disease to estimate post‐test probability. Conclusion: Likelihood ratios summarize information about a diagnostic test by combining sensitivity and specificity. The Fagan's nomogram is a useful and convenient graphical tool that allows likelihood ratios to be used in conjunction with a patient's pre‐test probability of disease to estimate the post‐test probability of disease.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios
Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7458.168 · Cited by 1,600
(1975) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197507312930513 · Cited by 1,017
Cited by
Fusar-Poli, P., Schultze-Lutter, F., Cappucciati, M., Rutigliano, G., Bonoldi, I., Stahl, D., Borgwardt, S., Riecher-Rössler, A., Addington, J., Perkins, D. O., et al. (2016) · Schizophrenia Bulletin · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbv162 · Cited by 219
Shen, C.-J., Wu, M.-S., Lin, K.-H., Lin, W.-L., Chen, H.-C., Wu, J.-Y., Lee, M. C.-H., & Lee, C.-C. (2013) · European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1007/s10096-012-1812-6 · Cited by 105
Dereu, M., Warreyn, P., Raymaekers, R., Meirsschaut, M., Pattyn, G., Schietecatte, I., & Roeyers, H. (2010) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-010-0984-0 · Cited by 72
Accuracy of physical examination for chronic lumbar radiculopathy
Iversen, T., Solberg, T. K., Romner, B., Wilsgaard, T., Nygaard, Ø., Waterloo, K., Brox, J. I., & Ingebrigtsen, T. (2013) · BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-206 · Cited by 67
Renz, P. B., Chume, F. C., Timm, J. R. T., Pimentel, A. L., & Camargo, J. L. (2019) · Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) · doi:10.1515/cclm-2018-1191 · Cited by 54
Metadata
- Authors
- Akobeng, A. K.
- Venue
- Acta Paediatrica
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-03-22
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 487-491
- ISSN
- 0365-1436 (ISSN-L)
- 0803-5253
- 1651-2227
- OpenAlex
- W2114043028
- Cited by
- 440
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 13.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Understanding diagnostic tests 2: likelihood ratios, pre‐ and post‐test probabilities and their use in clinical practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.00179.x
- The paper
- Akobeng, A. K. (2007). Understanding diagnostic tests 2: likelihood ratios, pre‐ and post‐test probabilities and their use in clinical practice. Acta Paediatrica. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.00179.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
