Transcript Diagnosis/Screening Tests (Powerpoint Presentation)

Statistics in
Screening/Diagnosis
Annie Herbert
Research & Development Department
Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
[email protected]
0161 2064567
Outline
• Intro: Design, recording results
• Sensitivity
• Specificity
• Continuous variables: ROC curves
• Predictive values
• Likelihood ratio
• Bias
Introduction: diagnostic test
Patient enters
clinic
(Patient has disease).
Takes test,
e.g. blood sample
(Patient doesn’t
have disease).
Takes test,
e.g. blood sample
Test result: Positive
Test result: Negative
Test result: Positive
Test result: Negative
(right diagnosis,
‘true positive’)
(wrong diagnosis,
‘false negative’)
(wrong diagnosis,
‘false positive’)
(right diagnosis,
‘true negative’)
Introduction: assessing a
diagnostic test
All participants
2 x 2 Table of results
Reference test
Reference test
2 x 2 Table of results
Index test
Index test
+
-
+
90
60
-
10
240
Introduction: 2x2 table of results
‘TRUTH’
(by Reference test
– Gold standard)
TEST RESULT
(by Index test)
Total
Total
+
-
+
True
Positive
False
Positive
Total said to
have disease
-
False
Negative
True
Negative
Total said not
to have
disease
Total with
disease
Total
without
disease
Hypothetical example
– Breast cancer screening study
• Gold standard:
Mammography
• Cheaper/more convenient option:
GP examination
Breast cancer screening results
‘TRUTH’
(by mammography)
TEST
RESULT
(by GP
Exam)
Total
Total
+
-
+
95
45
140
-
5
855
860
100
900
1000
Sensitivity - Definition
• What proportion of people who have the
condition are identified as positive by the
test?
• If a test has a high sensitivity, most people
with the condition are picked up by the
test.
Have condition
+ve test
Sensitivity - Calculation
TEST
RESULT
Total
+
-
‘TRUTH’
(by gold
standard)
+
a
b
c
d
a+c
b+d
Sensitivity = a/(a+c)
Sensitivity - Example
Mammography
GP Exam
Total
+
-
+
95
5
45
855
100
900
Sensitivity = 95/100 = 0.95
I.e. 95% of patients diagnosed as having breast cancer
by the mammogram are picked up by GP examination.
Specificity - Definition
• What proportion of people who don’t have
the condition are identified as negative by
the test?
• If a test has a high specificity, most people
without the condition are ruled out by the
test.
Don’t have condition
-ve test
Specificity - Calculation
TEST
RESULT
Total
+
-
‘TRUTH’
(by gold
standard)
+
a
b
c
d
a+c
b+d
Specificity = d/(b+d)
Specificity - Example
Mammography
GP Exam
Total
+
-
+
95
5
45
855
100
900
Specificity = 855/900 = 0.95
I.e. 95% of patients diagnosed as not having breast cancer
by the mammogram are ruled out by GP examination.
Sensitivity & Specificity - Notes
• It is essential to have a confirmed ‘true’
diagnosis (+ve or -ve). The accuracies of
sensitivity and specificity are only as good as
that of the gold standard.
• Sensitivity and specificity are estimated from a
sample, and so should be accompanied by
confidence intervals to convey amount of
uncertainty.
(StatsDirect: Analysis -> Proportions -> Single)
Tests based on continuous variables (1)
• One or more continuous variables can be a
marker for a condition, where a very low/high
level indicates a low/high likelihood of having the
condition.
• A cut-off level can be determined where having
higher/lower than that cut-off indicates a positive
test result.
• Different cut-off points will give different
sensitivity/specificity values.
Tests based on continuous variables (2)
1000
10
100
creatinekinase
10000
5000
E.g. Creatinekinase in patients with unstable angina or
acute myocardial infarction
angina
myocardial infarction
Data of Frances Boa, from ‘An introduction to Medical Statistics’ by Martin Bland
Test
Total
+
-
Sensitivity Specificity
= 27/27
= 39/93
= 0.42
= 1.0
100
1000
10
Truth
+
27 54
0
39
27 93
creatinekinase
10000
5000
Tests based on continuous variables (3)
angina
myocardial infarction
Cut-off
level at 80
Test
Total
+
-
Sensitivity Specificity
= 26/27
= 58/93
= 0.62
= 0.96
100
1000
10
Truth
+
26 35
1
58
27 93
creatinekinase
10000
5000
Tests based on continuous variables (4)
angina
Cut-off
level at
100
myocardial infarction
The trade-off
• Plot sensitivity against (1-specificity) to get the ROC
(‘receiver operating characteristic’) curve.
• Ideally want high sensitivity and high specificity (but
increase in one is at expense of the other).
• Also requires some clinical judgement,
e.g. Likely considered better to send women without
breast cancer to have a mammogram than give those
with breast cancer the all clear.
• Check sensitivity and specificity values in a new sample.
ROC curve
Sensitivity = 1.0
Specificity = 1.0
The diagonal line
represents
ROC plot for MI data
Sensitivity
1.00
sensitivity = specificity,
i.e. taking the test is as
good as flipping a coin.
0.75
0.50
0.25
Sensitivity = 0.0
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1-Specificity
Specificity = 0.0
Optimum cut-off
MI data:
• ‘Optimum’ cut-off point selected = 302
• Sensitivity (95% CI) = 0.93 (0.76 to 0.99)
• Specificity (95% CI) = 0.97 (0.91 to 0.99)
Note: ‘optimum’ assumes sensitivity and specificity
of equal concern.
Area under the ROC curve
• Area under the ROC curve can be between 0 (sensitivity
and specificity always 0.0) and 1 (sensitivity and
specificity always 1.0).
• Can be useful for comparing two tests.
• MI data: Area under curve is an estimate of ‘probability
that creatinekinase of random person with MI will be
higher than for random person with angina’.
The difference between sensitivity &
specificity and predictive values…
• Sensitivity & Specificity: How good is the
test at making the right diagnosis?
• Predictive Values: Once diagnosis has
been made, how reliable is it?
Positive Predictive Value - Definition
• Proportion of those with a positive test
result that actually have the condition.
• If a test has a high positive predictive
value, if someone tests positive for the
condition, there is a high probability that
they have it.
Have
Test positive
condition
Positive Predictive Value - Calculation
‘TRUTH’
TEST
RESULT
+
+
-
a
b
Total
a+b
PPV
= a/(a+b)
-
c
d
c+d
Positive Predictive Value - Example
‘TRUTH’
(by
mammogram) Total
TEST
+
RESULT
(by GP
Exam) -
+
-
95
45
140
PPV
= 95/140
5
855
860
= 0.68
I.e. 68% of patients who test positive for breast cancer
by GP examination could be expected to test positive
by mammogram.
Negative Predictive Value - Definition
• Proportion of those with a negative test
result that really don’t have the condition.
• If a test has a high negative predictive
value, if someone tests negative for the
condition, there is a high probability that
they don’t have it.
Don’t have
condition
Test negative
Negative Predictive Value - Calculation
‘TRUTH’
TEST
RESULT
+
-
+
-
a
b
c
d
Total
a+b
c+d
NPV
= d/(c+d)
Negative Predictive Value - Example
‘TRUTH’
(by
mammogram) Total
TEST
+
RESULT
(by GP
Exam) -
+
-
95
45
140
NPV
= 855/860
5
855
860
= 0.99
I.e. 99% of patients who test negative for breast cancer
by GP examination would be expected to test negative
by mammogram.
Prevalence
• What proportion of people in a cohort have
the disease? E.g. “The prevalence of breast
cancer in females over 40 years of age is
approximately 1.5%”.
• ‘Prevalence’ is not the same as ‘incidence’.
• Sensitivity & specificity values are unaffected
by prevalence, though predictive values are.
E.g. Test with 95% sensitivity and
95% specificity:
MeReC Briefing: supplement to issue 30
Example: Self administered cognitive screening test
(TYM) for detection of Alzheimer’s disease: cross
sectional study, Brown et al, June 2009
“A score of 42/50 had a sensitivity of 93% and
specificity of 86% in the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s
disease. The TYM was more sensitive in detection
of Alzheimer’s disease than the mini-mental
examination, detecting 93% of patients compared
with 52% for the mini-mental state examination.
The negative and positive predictive values of the
TYM with the cut off of 42 were 99% and 42% with
a prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease of 10%.”
Likelihood Ratio - Definition
• How many times more (or less) a patient
with the condition is likely to have that
particular result than a patient without the
disease.
• Can be used to calculate the probability of
individual patient having condition based
on test results.
Use of Fagan's nomogram for calculating post-test probabilities:
Deeks, J. J et al. BMJ 2004;329:168-169
Copyright ©2004 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
Bias in studies:
• Is the reference appropriate?
• Was the same reference used for all
patients (verification bias)?
• Were assessors blind to case details?
• Was it a ‘diagnostic case-control study’?
• Which population was the test tested in?
Summary
• All patients must have both new test & reference test (gold
standard).
• Report 2x2 table and give sensitivity, specificity with precision.
• A good screening test is not necessarily a good diagnostic
test.
• Test cut-offs in an independent sample.
• Predictive values vary according to prevalence.
• Consider all potential sources of bias.
Recommended Texts
• BMJ Statistics Notes:
– 1) Sensitivity & Specificity
– 2) Predictive Values
– 3) ROC Curves
– 4) Likelihood Ratios
• Assessing bias
– How to read a paper: Papers that report diagnostic
or screening tests by Trisha Greenhalgh; BMJ 1997
315 pg. 540.