Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2005; 44(01): 124-126
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1633930
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

A Ruler for Interpreting Diagnostic Test Results

M. Hellmich
1   Institute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Germany
,
W. Lehmacher
1   Institute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 02 October 2003

accepted: 17 March 2004

Publication Date:
06 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: Bayes’ rule formalizes how the pre-test probability of having a condition of interest is changed by a diagnostic test result to yield the post-test probability of having the condition. To simplify this calculation a geometric solution in form of a ruler is presented.

Methods: Using odds and the likelihood ratio of a test result in favor of having the condition of interest, Bayes’ rule can succinctly be expressed as ”the post-test odds equals the pre-test odds times the likelihood ratio”. Taking logarithms of both sides yields an additive equation.

Results: The additive log odds equation can easily be solved geometrically. We propose a ruler made of two scales to be adjusted laterally. A different, widely used solution in form of a nomogram was published by Fagan [2].

Conclusions: Whilst use of the nomogram seems more obvious, the ruler may be easier to operate in clinical practice since no straight edge is needed for precise reading. Moreover, the ruler yields more intuitive results because it shows the change in probability due to a given test result on the same scale.

Keywords

Bayes’ rule - nomogram - likelihood ratio
 

  • References

  • 1 Spiegelhalter DJ, Myles JP, Jones DR, Abrams KR. An introduction to Bayesian methods in health technology assessment. BMJ 1999; 319: 508-12.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Fagan TJ. Letter: Nomogram for Bayes’s theorem. N Engl J Med 1975; 293: 257.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Landray MJ, Lehman R, Arnold I. Measuring brain natriuretic peptide in suspected left ventricular systolic dysfunction in general practice: cross-sectional study. BMJ 2000; 320: 985-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sackett DL, Haynes RB. The architecture of diagnostic research. In. Knottnerus AJ. editor. The Evidence Base of Clinical Diagnosis. London: BMJ Books; 2002: 19-38.
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Struthers AD. Further defining the role for natriuretic peptide levels in clinical practice. Eur Heart J 1999; 20: 712-4.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Richardson WS, Burdette SD. Practice corner: taking evidence in hand [EBM Note]. Evidencebased Medicine 2003; 8: 4-5.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Glasziou P. Which methods for bedside Bayes? [EBM Note]. Evidence-based Medicine 2001; 6: 164-5.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar