IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v29y2009i1p116-124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incorporating Uncertainty Into Medical Decision Making: An Approach to Unexpected Test Results

Author

Listed:
  • Matt T. Bianchi

    (Partners Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Wang Ambulatory Center, Boston, Massachusetts, thebianchi@gmail.com)

  • Brian M. Alexander

    (Harvard Radiation Oncology Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Beth Israel Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts)

  • Sydney S. Cash

    (Partners Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Wang Ambulatory Center, Boston, Massachusetts)

Abstract

The utility of diagnostic tests derives from the ability to translate the population concepts of sensitivity and specificity into information that will be useful for the individual patient: the predictive value of the result. As the array of available diagnostic testing broadens, there is a temptation to de-emphasize history and physical findings and defer to the objective rigor of technology. However, diagnostic test interpretation is not always straightforward. One significant barrier to routine use of probability-based test interpretation is the uncertainty inherent in pretest probability estimation, the critical first step of Bayesian reasoning. The context in which this uncertainty presents the greatest challenge is when test results oppose clinical judgment. It is this situation when decision support would be most helpful. The authors propose a simple graphical approach that incorporates uncertainty in pretest probability and has specific application to the interpretation of unexpected results. This method quantitatively demonstrates how uncertainty in disease probability may be amplified when test results are unexpected (opposing clinical judgment), even for tests with high sensitivity and specificity. The authors provide a simple nomogram for determining whether an unexpected test result suggests that one should ``switch diagnostic sides.'' This graphical framework overcomes the limitation of pretest probability uncertainty in Bayesian analysis and guides decision making when it is most challenging: interpretation of unexpected test results.

Suggested Citation

  • Matt T. Bianchi & Brian M. Alexander & Sydney S. Cash, 2009. "Incorporating Uncertainty Into Medical Decision Making: An Approach to Unexpected Test Results," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(1), pages 116-124, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:1:p:116-124
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08323620
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X08323620
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X08323620?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John A. Baron, 1994. "Uncertainty in Bayes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(1), pages 46-51, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tritter, Jonathan Q. & Lutfey, Karen & McKinlay, John, 2014. "What are tests for? The implications of stuttering steps along the US patient pathway," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 37-43.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:1:p:116-124. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.