Why the study?
How do different referent standards of cardiac normality affect the apparent specificity of radionuclide ventriculography?
How do different referent standards of cardiac normality affect the apparent specificity of radionuclide ventriculography?
Different referent populations for cardiac normality yield significantly different specificities for radionuclide ventriculography, with volunteers providing too strict a standard and catheterized normal patients providing too lenient a standard.
Referent population choice markedly alters apparent radionuclide ventriculography specificity; leaves open the optimal normality standard for validation studies.
The radionuclide ventriculographic exercise response was evaluated in three patient populations representing alternative referent standards for cardiac normality: patients with normal coronary arteriograms, healthy volunteers, and uncatheterized patients with a low probability of coronary artery disease. Disease probability was determined by Bayesian analysis of age, sex, symptoms, and the results of cardiac fluoroscopy, exercise electrocardiography, or thallium scintigraphy. A wide range of ventriculographic responses was noted in the 62 catheterized normal patients; 21 (34%) had an abnormal ejection fraction response and 22 (35%) had an abnormal wall motion response. In contrast, the ejection fraction and wall motion responses were normal in the 9 volunteers. In 90 patients (18 catheterized and 72 uncatheterized) who had low disease probability (less than 1%), abnormal responses were rare; the ejection fraction response was abnormal in only 7% and the wall motion response was abnormal in 8%. Thus, these three populations are not equivalent referent standards of normality. Volunteers and patients with low disease probability provide too strict a standard, and their use can overestimate test specificity; catheterized normal patients, on the other hand, provide too lenient a standard, and their use can underestimate test specificity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alan Rozanski (1984) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: