• J Gen Intern Med · Apr 2011

    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.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    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..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.