Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Metrics calculate diagnostic, predictive, and misdiagnostic values of neurological signs for cognitive status.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: "Number needed to" metrics may hold more intuitive appeal for clinicians than standard diagnostic accuracy measures. The aim of this study was to calculate "number needed to diagnose" (NND), "number needed to predict" (NNP), and "number needed to misdiagnose" (NNM) for neurological signs of possible value in assessing cognitive status. METHODS: ) were analysed to calculate the NND, NNP, and NNM. RESULTS: All measures of discrimination showed broad ranges. The range of NND and NNP suggested that these signs were, with a single exception, of value for correctly diagnosing or predicting cognitive status (presence or absence of cognitive impairment) when between 2 and 4 patients were examined. However, NNM showed similar values (range 1-5 patients) suggesting risk of misdiagnosis. CONCLUSION: NND, NNP, and NNM may be useful, intuitive, metrics in assessing the utility of diagnostic tests in day-to-day clinical practice. A ratio of NNM to either NND or NNP, termed the likelihood to diagnose or misdiagnose, may clarify the utility or inutility of diagnostic tests.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A. J. Larner (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: