Comparing the sensitivities and specificities of two diagnostic procedures performed on the same group of patients.
Abstract
Studies of diagnostic accuracy are the most commonly performed diagnostic tests. These are carried out by using Decision Matrix tables in which sensitivities, specificities, predictive values and other ratios are calculated and compared. Various recoverable pitfalls and limitations of this method have been reported. This study reports additional further limitations of using this method as a statistical analytical tool. Decision protocol and formulae are presented to show how the sensitivities and specificities of tests are compared in order to make a decision. The study also shows how special tables can be constructed for the four results of comparative diagnostic tests (true positive, true negative, false positive and false negative), and cautions against the use of some 2 x 2 contingency tables. The procedures of how to use these special tables and formulae for comparing sensitivity and specificity and deriving confidence intervals for their difference are presented. It is also shown how it is possible to make a single inference from diagnostic test performance which will permit the determination of which test is better.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
To the best of our knowledge this is the first study which evaluated and compared the diagnostic performance of hsCRP and classical CRP assays in endometriosis based on the comparison of ROC curves and diagnostic sensitivities of these tests.
“To the best of our knowledge this is the first study which evaluated and compared the diagnostic performance of hsCRP and classical CRP assays in endometriosis based on the comparison of ROC curves and diagnostic sensitivities of these tests, as recommended by previous investigators [19,24,25].”
From A high sensitivity assay is more accurate than a classical assay for the measurement of plasma CRP levels in endometriosis (2011) · cites this paper as [19]
Cites
Problems of Spectrum and Bias in Evaluating the Efficacy of Diagnostic Tests
Ransohoff, D. F., & Feinstein, A. R. (1978) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197810262991705 · Cited by 1,739 · see citing works
Primer on Certain Elements of Medical Decision Making
McNeil, B. J., Keeler, E., & Adelstein, S. J. (1975) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197507312930501 · Cited by 1,147 · see citing works
The Analysis of Contingency Tables
Everitt, B. J. (1977) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2927-3 · Cited by 890 · see citing works
Diagnostic Decision: Probability Theory in the Use of Diagnostic Tests
Sox, H. C. (1986) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-104-1-60 · Cited by 365 · see citing works
Sample Size for Testing Differences in Proportions for the Paired-Sample Design
Connor, R. (1987) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531961 · Cited by 189 · see citing works
Methodologic problems of exercise testing for coronary artery disease: Groups, analysis and bias
Philbrick, J. T., Horwitz, R. I., & Feinstein, A. R. (1980) · The American Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/0002-9149(80)90432-4 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
The limited spectrum of patients studied in exercise test research. Analyzing the tip of the iceberg
Philbrick, J. T. (1982) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.248.19.2467 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Evaluating and comparing imaging techniques: a review and classification of study designs
Freedman, L. S. (1987) · British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/0007-1285-60-719-1071 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Sample size determination in studies with matched pairs
Fleiss, J. L., & Levin, B. L. (1988) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(88)90158-8 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Does McNemar’s test compare the sensitivities and specificities of two diagnostic tests?
Kim, S., & Lee, W. (2017) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/0962280214541852 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Brodersen, J. B., Jensen, M. D., Leenhardt, R., Kjeldsen, J., Histace, A., Knudsen, T., & Dray, X. (2024) · Journal of Crohn's and Colitis · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad131 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Kyabayinze, D. J., Tibenderana, J. K., Nassali, M., Tumwine, L. K., Riches, C., Montague, M., Counihan, H., Hamade, P., Van Geertruyden, J.-P., & Meek, S. (2011) · Malaria Journal · doi:10.1186/1475-2875-10-306 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Umbers, A. J., Unger, H. W., Rosanas-Urgell, A., Wangnapi, R. A., Kattenberg, J. H., Jally, S., Silim, S., Lufele, E., Karl, S., Ome-Kaius, M., et al. (2015) · Malaria Journal · doi:10.1186/s12936-015-0927-5 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Vodolazkaia, A., Bossuyt, X., Fassbender, A., Kyama, C. M., Meuleman, C., Peeraer, K., Tomassetti, C., & D'Hooghe, T. M. (2011) · Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology · doi:10.1186/1477-7827-9-113 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hawass, N. E.
- Affiliations
- King Saud University (SA)
- Corresponding author
- Hawass, N E
- Venue
- The British Journal of Radiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1997-04-01
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 832
- Pages
- 360-366
- ISSN
- 0007-1285 (ISSN-L)
- 1748-880X
- OpenAlex
- W2035088944
- Cited by
- 230
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 0.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- British Journal of Radiology (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
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Keywords
- diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic test comparison, 2x2 contingency tables, confidence intervals, diagnostic performance, false positive and false negative rates
- MeSH terms
- Diagnostic Imaging, False Negative Reactions, False Positive Reactions, Humans, Sensitivity and Specificity, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Ultrasonography
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
