Evidence 1 & 2 Flashcards

1
Q

likelihood ratios

A

probability that you’d see some evidence if your hypothesis were true/probability that you’d see the exact same evidence if your hypothesis were false

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

A number representing the diagnostic usefulness of a test

A

likelihood ratio

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

LR = 1

A

is useless
doesn’t help you differentiate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

LR > 1

A

increases probability (the higher the better)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

LR < 1

A

decreases probability (the lower the better)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

LR +

A

means the finding was present, not that it necessarily increases the probability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

LR -

A

means that the finding was absent, not that it’s a negative number and not necessarily that it decreases the probability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Does an LR- decrease the probability?

A

NO

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

beware of double-counting evidence

A

can inflate LRs or deflate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

when choosing between multiple LR options, which one do you choose?

A

the one that provides the best evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

in patients who have the disease, the probability that the test will be positive

A

sensitivity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

in patients who don’t have the disease, the
the probability that your test will be negative

A

specificity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

the probability that you would see certain evidence if your hypothesis were true

A

sensitivity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

the complement of the probability that you would see the same evidence if your hypothesis were false

A

specificity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Calculating LR

A

sensitivity/specificity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

An LR- (finding is absent) can be calculated similarly:

A

1 – sensitivity/specificity

17
Q

is the change of the application of LR linear?

A

No, an LR of 10 is better than an LR of 5, but it doesn’t increase the probability by twice as much

18
Q

the more extreme your initial probability (the closer to 0 or 100), the _______ it should be to change your mind

A

harder

19
Q

pre-test probability can be based on the ________ of a disease in a population

A

prevalence

20
Q

Is it reasonable to assume that there’s a low probability that your patient has a rare disease?

A

yes

21
Q

50% certainty is as uncertain as you can get; any lower and you’re more certain the condition is…

A

not present

22
Q

no amount of evidence can take you to which percent?

A

0 or 100

23
Q

which of the following would have the greatest increase in probability?
a. an LR of 5 starting with a probability of 5%
b. an LR of 5 starting with a probability of 50%
c. an LR of 5 starting with a probability of 95%

A

B
the more extreme the initial probability, the less it will change in light of evidence

24
Q

why is it useful clinically to be familiar with LR’s

A

clinician is able to prioritize information-gathering and help clinicians behave more expertly

25
Q

spPIN/snNOUT

A

a specific test, if positive, helps rule the condition IN, and a sensitive test, if negative, helps rule the condition OUT

26
Q

it takes more/better evidence to go from, 1%-5% than from 51% to 55% certainty. Why?

A

1% is an extreme
when you are around 50% then it should be easily swayed one way or the other
- 50% is the most uncertain you can get

27
Q

how can you roughly calculate the post-test probability for low pretest and moderate LRs?

A

you can multiply the probability by the LR and you will get a reasonably good estimate

example: a pre-test probability of 2% with an LR of 5 = post-test probability of about 10%

28
Q

the probability that disease is present given that a test was positive

A

positive predictive value

29
Q

the probability that disease is absent given that a test was negative

A

negative predictive value

30
Q

what is the assumption when using PPV and NPVs

A

your patient’s pretest probability is the same as those in the study that determined the PPV/NPV

It’s almost as if it has already done the LR calculation for you but assumed a pretest probability

I.e. simpler but not as ACCURATE (depending on pretest probability) as applying LRs

31
Q

what should you think of when you hear “pathognomonic finding”

A

HIGH LR
- pathos “disease“, gnomon “indicator”

Findings that, if present, strongly increase the probability of a condition

32
Q

is a pathognomonic finding particularly sensitive or highly specific?

A

Not necessarily particularly sensitive but highly specific

33
Q

what should you think of when you hear “Sine qua non-findings”

A

LOW LR - CLOSE TO 0
“without which it could not be”

Findings that, if absent, strongly decrease the probability of a condition

34
Q

Evidence: The Process In Practice

A
  1. Recognize the need for more evidence
  2. Choose a test (question, physical exam, lab test)
  3. Perform the test correctly
    - For labs, this may be the responsibility of the technician. For physical exams, we have the Clinical Skills Practicum
  4. Interpret the results correctly
  5. Repeat steps 1-4 until you cross a threshold (see thresholds lecture)
35
Q

Evidence: Errors In Practice

A
  1. Fail to recognize the need for more evidence (premature closure)
  2. Poorly chosen or missed tests (question, physical exam, lab, etc.)
  3. Incorrectly performed test (esp. physical exam)
  4. Incorrect interpretation (lack of knowledge, bias)
36
Q

premature closure

A

fail to recognize the need for more evidence

37
Q

what are examples of incorrect interpretation?

A

lack of knowledge, bias

38
Q

as someone goes from novice to expert, the amount of data gathered goes up, but their diagnostic accuracy improves.. why?

A

The quality of the data collected

an expert gathers more information - data is more information RICH

ask questions where the results provide MORE EVIDENCE - the questions are associated with higher LRs