Original Article

Propagation of Uncertainty in Bayesian Diagnostic Test Interpretation

Authors: Preethi Srinivasan, MS, M. Brandon Westover, MD, PhD, Matt T. Bianchi, MD, PhD

Abstract

Objectives: Bayesian interpretation of diagnostic test results usually involves point estimates of the pretest probability and the likelihood ratio corresponding to the test result; however, it may be more appropriate in clinical situations to consider instead a range of possible values to express uncertainty in the estimates of these parameters. We thus sought to demonstrate how uncertainty in sensitivity, specificity, and disease pretest probability can be accommodated in Bayesian interpretation of diagnostic testing.


Methods: We investigated three questions: How does uncertainty in the likelihood ratio propagate to the posttest probability range, assuming a point estimate of pretest probability? How does uncertainty in the sensitivity and specificity of a test affect uncertainty in the likelihood ratio? How does uncertainty propagate when present in both the pretest probability and the likelihood ratio?


Results: Propagation of likelihood ratio uncertainty depends on the pretest probability and is more prominent for unexpected test results. Uncertainty in sensitivity and specificity propagates into the calculation of likelihood ratio prominently as these parameters approach 100%; even modest errors of ±10% caused dramatic propagation. Combining errors of ±20% in the pretest probability and in the likelihood ratio exhibited modest propagation to posttest probability, suggesting a realistic target range for clinical estimations.


Conclusions: The results provide a framework for incorporating ranges of uncertainty into Bayesian reasoning. Although point estimates simplify the implementation of Bayesian reasoning, it is important to recognize the implications of error propagation when ranges are considered in this multistep process.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Gallagher EJ. Clinical utility of likelihood ratios. Ann Emerg Med 1998; 31: 391–397.
 
2. Halkin A, Reichman J, Schwaber M, et al. Likelihood ratios: getting diagnostic testing into perspective. Q J Med 1998; 91: 247–258.
 
3. Dolan JG, Bordley DR, Mushlin AI. An evaluation of clinicians’ subjective prior probability estimates. Med Decis Making 1986; 6: 216–223.
 
4. Lyman GH, Balducci L. Overestimation of test effects in clinical judgment. J Cancer Educ 1993; 8: 297–307.
 
5. Lyman GH, Balducci L. The effect of changing disease risk on clinical reasoning. J Gen Intern Med 1994; 9: 488–495.
 
6. Noguchi Y, Matsui K, Imura H, et al. Quantitative evaluation of the diagnostic thinking process in medical students. J Gen Intern Med 2002; 17: 839–844.
 
7. Heller RF, Sandars JE, Patterson L, et al. GPs’ and physicians’ interpretation of risks, benefits and diagnostic test results. Fam Pract 2004; 21: 155–159.
 
8. Elstein AS. Heuristics and biases: selected errors in clinical reasoning. Acad Med 1999; 74: 791–794.
 
9. Richardson WS. Five uneasy pieces about pre-test probability. J Gen Intern Med 2002; 17: 882–883.
 
10. Cahan A, Gilon D, Manor O, et al. Probabilistic reasoning and clinical decision-making: do doctors overestimate diagnostic probabilities? Q J Med 2003; 96: 763–769.
 
11. Attia JR, Nair BR, Sibbritt DW, et al. Generating pre-test probabilities: a neglected area in clinical decision making. Med J Aust 2004; 180: 449–454.
 
12. Ghosh AK, Ghosh K, Erwin PJ. Do medical students and physicians understand probability? Q J Med 2004; 97: 53–55.
 
13. Boyko EJ. Ruling out or ruling in disease with the most sensitive or specific diagnostic test: short cut or wrong turn? Med Decis Making 1994; 14: 175–179.
 
14. Pewsner D, Battaglia M, Minder C, et al. Ruling a diagnosis in or out with SpPIn and SnNOut: a note of caution. BMJ 2004; 329: 209–213.
 
15. Phelps MA, Levitt MA. Pretest probability estimates: a pitfall to the clinical utility of evidence-based medicine? Acad Emerg Med 2004; 11: 692–694.
 
16. Linn S, Grunau PD. New patient-oriented summary measure of net total gain in certainty for dichotomous diagnostic tests. Epidemiol Perspect Innov 2006; 3: 11.
 
17. Baron JA. Uncertainty in Bayes. Med Decis Making 1994; 14: 46–51.
 
18. Bianchi MT, Alexander BM. Evidence based diagnosis: does the language reflect the theory? BMJ 2006; 333: 442–445.
 
19. Bianchi MT, Alexander BM, Cash SS. Incorporating uncertainty into medical decision making: an approach to unexpected test results. Med Decis Making 2009; 29: 116–124.
 
20. Segal JB, Eng J, Tamariz LJ, et al. Review of the evidence on diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Ann Fam Med 2007; 5: 63–73.
 
21. Fleischmann KE, Hunink MG, Kuntz KM, et al. Exercise echocardiography or exercise SPECT imaging? A meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance. JAMA 1998; 280: 913–920.