The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity, specificity and predictive values
Abstract
The usefulness of diagnostic tests, that is their ability to detect a person with disease or exclude a person without disease, is usually described by terms such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. In this article, the first of the series, a simple, practical explanation of these concepts is provided and their use and misuse discussed. It is explained that while sensitivity and specificity are important measures of the diagnostic accuracy of a test, they are of no practical use when it comes to helping the clinician estimate the probability of disease in individual patients. Predictive values may be used to estimate probability of disease but both positive predictive value and negative predictive value vary according to disease prevalence. It would therefore be wrong for predictive values determined for one population to be applied to another population with a different prevalence of disease. Conclusion: Sensitivity and specificity are important measures of the diagnostic accuracy of a test but cannot be used to estimate the probability of disease in an individual patient. Positive and negative predictive values provide estimates of probability of disease but both parameters vary according to disease prevalence.
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
Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM
Sackett, D. L. (2000) · Cited by 5,950
Statistics Notes: Diagnostic tests 2: predictive values
Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102 · Cited by 1,711
Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM
Satya-Murti, S. (2000) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.284.18.2382 · Cited by 1,643
Understanding sensitivity and specificity with the right side of the brain
Loong, T.-W. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7417.716 · Cited by 347
Communicating accuracy of tests to general practitioners: a controlled study
Steurer, J., Fischer, J. E., Bachmann, L. M., Koller, M., & ter Riet, G. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7341.824 · Cited by 147
Last, J. M. (2001) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/154.4.389 · Cited by 110
The Validity of the Uriscreen Test for Early Detection of Urinary Tract Infection in Children
Waisman, Y., Zerem, E., Amir, L., & Mimouni, M. (1999) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.104.4.e41 · Cited by 62
Disappointing dipstick screening for urinary tract infection in hospital inpatients.
Zaman, Z., Borremans, A., Verhaegen, J., Verbist, L., & Blanckaert, N. (1998) · Journal of Clinical Pathology · doi:10.1136/jcp.51.6.471 · Cited by 44
Cited by
Understanding diagnostic tests 3: receiver operating characteristic curves
Akobeng, A. K. (2007) · Acta Paediatrica · doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.00178.x · Cited by 1,882
Self-citationTrevethan, R. (2017) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2017.00307 · Cited by 1,616
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
Biomarkers in Sporadic and Familial Alzheimer’s Disease
Lista, S., O’Bryant, S. E., Blennow, K., Dubois, B., Hugon, J., Zetterberg, H., & Hampel, H. (2015) · Journal of Alzheimer's Disease · doi:10.3233/jad-143006 · Cited by 106
Developing and validating a prediction model for lymphedema detection in breast cancer survivors
Wei, X., Lu, Q., Jin, S., Li, F., Zhao, Q., Cui, Y., Jin, S., Cao, Y., & Fu, M. R. (2021) · European Journal of Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2021.102023 · Cited by 49
Metadata
- Authors
- Akobeng, A. K.
- Venue
- Acta Paediatrica
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-02-23
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 338-341
- ISSN
- 0365-1436 (ISSN-L)
- 0803-5253
- 1651-2227
- OpenAlex
- W2075588526
- Cited by
- 707
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 8.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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 1: sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.00180.x
- The paper
- Akobeng, A. K. (2007). Understanding diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Acta Paediatrica. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.00180.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.