Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Apr;26(4):373-8. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1540-5. Epub 2010 Nov 4.

Does prevalence matter to physicians in estimating post-test probability of disease? A randomized trial.

Author information

1
Division of Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospitals of Geneva, Gabrielle Perret-Gentil 6, 1211, Geneva 14, Switzerland. thomas.agoritsas@hcuge.ch

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.

Comment in

PMID:
21053091
PMCID:
PMC3055966
DOI:
10.1007/s11606-010-1540-5
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center