-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
Does prevalence matter to physicians in estimating post-test probability of disease? A randomized trial.
- Thomas Agoritsas, Delphine S Courvoisier, Christophe Combescure, Marie Deom, and Thomas V Perneger.
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospitals of Geneva, Gabrielle Perret-Gentil 6, 1211, Geneva 14, Switzerland. thomas.agoritsas@hcuge.ch
- J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Apr 1; 26 (4): 373378373-8.
BackgroundThe probability of a disease following a diagnostic test depends on the sensitivity and specificity of the test, but also on the prevalence of the disease in the population of interest (or pre-test probability). How physicians use this information is not well known.ObjectiveTo assess whether physicians correctly estimate post-test probability according to various levels of prevalence and explore this skill across respondent groups.DesignRandomized trial.ParticipantsPopulation-based sample of 1,361 physicians of all clinical specialties.InterventionWe described a scenario of a highly accurate screening test (sensitivity 99% and specificity 99%) in which we randomly manipulated the prevalence of the disease (1%, 2%, 10%, 25%, 95%, or no information).Main MeasuresWe asked physicians to estimate the probability of disease following a positive test (categorized as <60%, 60-79%, 80-94%, 95-99.9%, and >99.9%). Each answer was correct for a different version of the scenario, and no answer was possible in the "no information" scenario. We estimated the proportion of physicians proficient in assessing post-test probability as the proportion of correct answers beyond the distribution of answers attributable to guessing.Key ResultsMost respondents in each of the six groups (67%-82%) selected a post-test probability of 95-99.9%, regardless of the prevalence of disease and even when no information on prevalence was provided. This answer was correct only for a prevalence of 25%. We estimated that 9.1% (95% CI 6.0-14.0) of respondents knew how to assess correctly the post-test probability. This proportion did not vary with clinical experience or practice setting.ConclusionsMost physicians do not take into account the prevalence of disease when interpreting a positive test result. This may cause unnecessary testing and diagnostic errors.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.