Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 4/2011

01-04-2011 | Original Research

Does Prevalence Matter to Physicians in Estimating Post-test Probability of Disease? A Randomized Trial

Authors: Thomas Agoritsas, MD, Delphine S. Courvoisier, PhD, Christophe Combescure, PhD, Marie Deom, MD, Thomas V. Perneger, MD, PhD

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 4/2011

Login to get access

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

The 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.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether physicians correctly estimate post-test probability according to various levels of prevalence and explore this skill across respondent groups.

DESIGN

Randomized trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Population-based sample of 1,361 physicians of all clinical specialties.

INTERVENTION

We 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 MEASURES

We 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 RESULTS

Most 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Most physicians do not take into account the prevalence of disease when interpreting a positive test result. This may cause unnecessary testing and diagnostic errors.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference Ghosh AK, Ghosh K, Erwin PJ. Do medical students and physicians understand probability? QJM. 2004;97(1):53–55.PubMedCrossRef Ghosh AK, Ghosh K, Erwin PJ. Do medical students and physicians understand probability? QJM. 2004;97(1):53–55.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Reid MC, Lane DA, Feinstein AR. Academic calculations versus clinical judgments: practicing physicians’ use of quantitative measures of test accuracy. Am J Med. 1998;104(4):374–380.PubMedCrossRef Reid MC, Lane DA, Feinstein AR. Academic calculations versus clinical judgments: practicing physicians’ use of quantitative measures of test accuracy. Am J Med. 1998;104(4):374–380.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Richardson WS. We should overcome the barriers to evidence-based clinical diagnosis! J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(3):217–227.PubMedCrossRef Richardson WS. We should overcome the barriers to evidence-based clinical diagnosis! J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(3):217–227.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Lyman GH, Balducci L. The effect of changing disease risk on clinical reasoning. J Gen Intern Med. 1994;9(9):488–495.PubMedCrossRef Lyman GH, Balducci L. The effect of changing disease risk on clinical reasoning. J Gen Intern Med. 1994;9(9):488–495.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Puhan MA, Steurer J, Bachmann LM, ter Riet G. A randomized trial of ways to describe test accuracy: the effect on physicians’ post-test probability estimates. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(3):184–189.PubMed Puhan MA, Steurer J, Bachmann LM, ter Riet G. A randomized trial of ways to describe test accuracy: the effect on physicians’ post-test probability estimates. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(3):184–189.PubMed
7.
go back to reference Sox CM, Doctor JN, Koepsell TD, Christakis DA. The influence of types of decision support on physicians’ decision making. Arch Dis Child. 2009;94(3):185–190.PubMedCrossRef Sox CM, Doctor JN, Koepsell TD, Christakis DA. The influence of types of decision support on physicians’ decision making. Arch Dis Child. 2009;94(3):185–190.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Steurer J, Fischer JE, Bachmann LM, Koller M, ter Riet G. Communicating accuracy of tests to general practitioners: a controlled study. BMJ. 2002;324(7341):824–826.PubMedCrossRef Steurer J, Fischer JE, Bachmann LM, Koller M, ter Riet G. Communicating accuracy of tests to general practitioners: a controlled study. BMJ. 2002;324(7341):824–826.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Attia JR, Nair BR, Sibbritt DW, et al. Generating pre-test probabilities: a neglected area in clinical decision making. Med J Aust. 2004;180(9):449–454.PubMed Attia JR, Nair BR, Sibbritt DW, et al. Generating pre-test probabilities: a neglected area in clinical decision making. Med J Aust. 2004;180(9):449–454.PubMed
10.
go back to reference Richardson WS. Five uneasy pieces about pre-test probability. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(11):882–883.PubMedCrossRef Richardson WS. Five uneasy pieces about pre-test probability. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(11):882–883.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Hoffrage U, Gigerenzer G. Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Acad Med. 1998;73(5):538–540.PubMedCrossRef Hoffrage U, Gigerenzer G. Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Acad Med. 1998;73(5):538–540.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Young JM, Glasziou P, Ward JE. General practitioners’ self ratings of skills in evidence based medicine: validation study. BMJ. 2002;324(7343):950–951.PubMedCrossRef Young JM, Glasziou P, Ward JE. General practitioners’ self ratings of skills in evidence based medicine: validation study. BMJ. 2002;324(7343):950–951.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Mosteller F, Tukey J. Data analysis and regression, a second course in statistics: Addison-Wesley publishing company; 1977. Mosteller F, Tukey J. Data analysis and regression, a second course in statistics: Addison-Wesley publishing company; 1977.
14.
go back to reference Efron B, Tibshirani R. An introduction to the Bootstrap: Chapman & Hall; 1993. Efron B, Tibshirani R. An introduction to the Bootstrap: Chapman & Hall; 1993.
15.
go back to reference R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org (Accessed on 3 October 2010). R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. 2008. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://​www.​R-project.​org (Accessed on 3 October 2010). R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. 2008.
16.
go back to reference Schwartz WB, Gorry GA, Kassirer JP, Essig A. Decision analysis and clinical judgment. Am J Med. 1973;55(3):459–472.PubMedCrossRef Schwartz WB, Gorry GA, Kassirer JP, Essig A. Decision analysis and clinical judgment. Am J Med. 1973;55(3):459–472.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Bianchi MT, Alexander BM. Evidence based diagnosis: does the language reflect the theory? BMJ. 2006;333(7565):442–445.PubMedCrossRef Bianchi MT, Alexander BM. Evidence based diagnosis: does the language reflect the theory? BMJ. 2006;333(7565):442–445.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Kurzenhauser S, Hoffrage U. Teaching Bayesian reasoning: an evaluation of a classroom tutorial for medical students. Med Teach. 2002;24(5):516–521.PubMedCrossRef Kurzenhauser S, Hoffrage U. Teaching Bayesian reasoning: an evaluation of a classroom tutorial for medical students. Med Teach. 2002;24(5):516–521.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Fagan TJ. Letter: nomogram for Bayes’ theorem. N Engl J Med. 1975;293(5):257.PubMed Fagan TJ. Letter: nomogram for Bayes’ theorem. N Engl J Med. 1975;293(5):257.PubMed
20.
go back to reference Noguchi Y, Matsui K, Imura H, Kiyota M, Fukui T. A traditionally administered short course failed to improve medical students’ diagnostic performance. A quantitative evaluation diagnostic thinking. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(5 Pt 1):427–432.PubMedCrossRef Noguchi Y, Matsui K, Imura H, Kiyota M, Fukui T. A traditionally administered short course failed to improve medical students’ diagnostic performance. A quantitative evaluation diagnostic thinking. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(5 Pt 1):427–432.PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Gill CJ, Sabin L, Schmid CH. Why clinicians are natural Bayesians. BMJ. 2005;330(7499):1080–1083.PubMedCrossRef Gill CJ, Sabin L, Schmid CH. Why clinicians are natural Bayesians. BMJ. 2005;330(7499):1080–1083.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, eds. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1982. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, eds. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1982.
23.
go back to reference Graber M, Gordon R, Franklin N. Reducing diagnostic errors in medicine: what’s the goal? Acad Med. 2002;77(10):981–992.PubMedCrossRef Graber M, Gordon R, Franklin N. Reducing diagnostic errors in medicine: what’s the goal? Acad Med. 2002;77(10):981–992.PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Berner ES, Graber ML. Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine. Am J Med. 2008;121(5 Suppl):S2–23.PubMedCrossRef Berner ES, Graber ML. Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine. Am J Med. 2008;121(5 Suppl):S2–23.PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Norman GR, Eva KW. Diagnostic error and clinical reasoning. Med Educ. Jan;44(1):94-100. Norman GR, Eva KW. Diagnostic error and clinical reasoning. Med Educ. Jan;44(1):94-100.
26.
go back to reference Croskerry P. The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Acad Med. 2003;78(8):775–780.PubMedCrossRef Croskerry P. The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Acad Med. 2003;78(8):775–780.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Kassirer JP, Kopelman RI. Cognitive errors in diagnosis: instantiation, classification, and consequences. Am J Med. 1989;86(4):433–441.PubMedCrossRef Kassirer JP, Kopelman RI. Cognitive errors in diagnosis: instantiation, classification, and consequences. Am J Med. 1989;86(4):433–441.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Grijalva CG, Poehling KA, Edwards KM, et al. Accuracy and interpretation of rapid influenza tests in children. Pediatrics. 2007;119(1):e6–11.PubMedCrossRef Grijalva CG, Poehling KA, Edwards KM, et al. Accuracy and interpretation of rapid influenza tests in children. Pediatrics. 2007;119(1):e6–11.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Veloski J, Tai S, Evans AS, Nash DB. Clinical vignette-based surveys: a tool for assessing physician practice variation. Am J Med Qual. 2005;20(3):151–157.PubMedCrossRef Veloski J, Tai S, Evans AS, Nash DB. Clinical vignette-based surveys: a tool for assessing physician practice variation. Am J Med Qual. 2005;20(3):151–157.PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(10):1129–1136.PubMedCrossRef Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(10):1129–1136.PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Whiting PF, Sterne JA, Westwood ME, et al. Graphical presentation of diagnostic information. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:20.PubMedCrossRef Whiting PF, Sterne JA, Westwood ME, et al. Graphical presentation of diagnostic information. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:20.PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Van den Ende J, Bisoffi Z, Van Puymbroek H, et al. Bridging the gap between clinical practice and diagnostic clinical epidemiology: pilot experiences with a didactic model based on a logarithmic scale. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13(3):374–380.PubMedCrossRef Van den Ende J, Bisoffi Z, Van Puymbroek H, et al. Bridging the gap between clinical practice and diagnostic clinical epidemiology: pilot experiences with a didactic model based on a logarithmic scale. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13(3):374–380.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Does Prevalence Matter to Physicians in Estimating Post-test Probability of Disease? A Randomized Trial
Authors
Thomas Agoritsas, MD
Delphine S. Courvoisier, PhD
Christophe Combescure, PhD
Marie Deom, MD
Thomas V. Perneger, MD, PhD
Publication date
01-04-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 4/2011
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1540-5

Other articles of this Issue 4/2011

Journal of General Internal Medicine 4/2011 Go to the issue

Healing Arts: Materia Medica

A Death in Primary Care