Author
Listed:
- Bettina Bisig
- Juan Moreira
- Mattieu Combes
- Anita Asiimwe
- Zeno Bisoffi
- Frank Haegeman
- Emmanuel Bottieau
- Jef Van den Ende
Abstract
Purpose: To assess how different diagnostic decision aids perform in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and harm. Methods: Four diagnostic decision aids were compared, as applied to a simulated patient population: a findings-based algorithm following a linear or branched pathway, a serial threshold–based strategy, and a parallel threshold–based strategy. Headache in immune-compromised HIV patients in a developing country was used as an example. Diagnoses included cryptococcal meningitis, cerebral toxoplasmosis, tuberculous meningitis, bacterial meningitis, and malaria. Data were derived from literature and expert opinion. Diagnostic strategies’ validity was assessed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and harm related to mortality and morbidity. Sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulation were performed. Results: The parallel threshold–based approach led to a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 65%. Sensitivities of the serial threshold–based approach and the branched and linear algorithms were 47%, 47%, and 74%, respectively, and the specificities were 85%, 95%, and 96%. The parallel threshold–based approach resulted in the least harm, with the serial threshold–based approach, the branched algorithm, and the linear algorithm being associated with 1.56-, 1.44-, and 1.17-times higher harm, respectively. Findings were corroborated by sensitivity and Monte Carlo analyses. Conclusion: A threshold-based diagnostic approach is designed to find the optimal trade-off that minimizes expected harm, enhancing sensitivity and lowering specificity when appropriate, as in the given example of a symptom pointing to several life-threatening diseases. Findings-based algorithms, in contrast, solely consider clinical observations. A parallel workup, as opposed to a serial workup, additionally allows for all potential diseases to be reviewed, further reducing false negatives. The parallel threshold–based approach might, however, not be as good in other disease settings.
Suggested Citation
Bettina Bisig & Juan Moreira & Mattieu Combes & Anita Asiimwe & Zeno Bisoffi & Frank Haegeman & Emmanuel Bottieau & Jef Van den Ende, 2012.
"Does Introduction of Thresholds in Decision Aids Benefit the Patient?,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(6), pages 16-34, November.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:32:y:2012:i:6:p:e16-e34
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12461854
Download full text from publisher
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:32:y:2012:i:6:p:e16-e34. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.