The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values: Foundations, Pliabilities, and Pitfalls in Research and Practice
Open accessAbstract
Within the context of screening tests, it is important to avoid misconceptions about sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. In this article, therefore, foundations are first established concerning these metrics along with the first of several aspects of pliability that should be recognized in relation to those metrics. Clarification is then provided about the definitions of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values and why researchers and clinicians can misunderstand and misrepresent them. Arguments are made that sensitivity and specificity should usually be applied only in the context of describing a screening test's attributes relative to a reference standard; that predictive values are more appropriate and informative in actual screening contexts, but that sensitivity and specificity can be used for screening decisions about individual people if they are extremely high; that predictive values need not always be high and might be used to advantage by adjusting the sensitivity and specificity of screening tests; that, in screening contexts, researchers should provide information about all four metrics and how they were derived; and that, where necessary, consumers of health research should have the skills to interpret those metrics effectively for maximum benefit to clients and the healthcare system.
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
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199
Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice,
(2002) · Survey of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0039-6257(02)00362-4 · Cited by 9,489
Understanding and using sensitivity, specificity and predictive values
Parikh, R., Mathai, A., Parikh, S., Chandra Sekhar, G., & Thomas, R. (2008) · Indian Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.4103/0301-4738.37595 · Cited by 1,391
Understanding diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity, specificity and predictive values
Akobeng, A. K. (2007) · Acta Paediatrica · doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.00180.x · Cited by 707
Evaluation of diagnostic tests for infectious diseases: general principles
Banoo, S., Bell, D., Bossuyt, P., Herring, A., Mabey, D., Poole, F., Smith, P. G., Sriram, N., Wongsrichanalai, C., Linke, R., et al. (2006) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro1523 · Cited by 454
Xu, D., Li, J., Zou, L., Xu, Y., Hu, D., Pagoto, S. L., & Ma, Y. (2010) · Vascular Medicine · doi:10.1177/1358863x10378376 · Cited by 302
Interpreting diagnostic accuracy studies for patient care
Mallett, S., Halligan, S., Thompson, M., Collins, G. S., & Altman, D. G. (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e3999 · Cited by 248
Can bedside assessment reliably exclude aspiration following acute stroke?
SMITHARD, D. G., O'NEILL, P. A., PARK, C., ENGLAND, R., RENWICK, D. S., WYATT, R., MORRIS, J., & MARTIN, D. F. (1998) · Age and Ageing · doi:10.1093/ageing/27.2.99 · Cited by 207
Ruling a diagnosis in or out with “SpPIn” and “SnNOut”: a note of caution
Pewsner, D., Battaglia, M., Minder, C., Marx, A., Bucher, H. C., & Egger, M. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7459.209 · Cited by 196
Okamoto, K., Oka, M., Maesato, K., Ikee, R., Mano, T., Moriya, H., Ohtake, T., & Kobayashi, S. (2006) · American Journal of Kidney Diseases · doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2006.04.075 · Cited by 144
Cited by
MIENTURNET: an interactive web tool for microRNA-target enrichment and network-based analysis
Licursi, V., Conte, F., Fiscon, G., & Paci, P. (2019) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/s12859-019-3105-x · Cited by 401
Forkus, S. R., Raudales, A. M., Rafiuddin, H. S., Weiss, N. H., Messman, B. A., & Contractor, A. A. (2023) · Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice · doi:10.1037/cps0000111 · Cited by 262
International 22q11.2 Brain and Behavior Consortium, Davies, R. W., Fiksinski, A. M., Breetvelt, E. J., Williams, N. M., Hooper, S. R., Monfeuga, T., Bassett, A. S., Owen, M. J., Gur, R. E., et al. (2020) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-020-1103-1 · Cited by 139
Villarreal-Zegarra, D., Barrera-Begazo, J., Otazú-Alfaro, S., Mayo-Puchoc, N., Bazo-Alvarez, J. C., & Huarcaya-Victoria, J. (2023) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076193 · Cited by 93
Barbaro, J., Sadka, N., Gilbert, M., Beattie, E., Li, X., Ridgway, L., Lawson, L. P., & Dissanayake, C. (2022) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.46415 · Cited by 76
Metadata
- Authors
- Trevethan, R.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Public Health
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2017-11-20
- Volume
- 5
- Pages
- 307-307
- ISSN
- 2296-2565 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2770877241
- Cited by
- 1,616
- References
- 15
- FWCI
- 34.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values: Foundations, Pliabilities, and Pitfalls in Research and Practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00307
- The paper
- Trevethan, R. (2017). Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values: Foundations, Pliabilities, and Pitfalls in Research and Practice. Frontiers in Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00307
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.
