Clinical Chemistry Link to Randox Laboratories Web Site
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Clinical Chemistry 34: 273-280, 1988;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Amenta, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Serenko-Aber, A. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Amenta, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Serenko-Aber, A. L.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 34, 273-280, Copyright © 1988 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Comparing different statistical methods for evaluating diagnostic effectiveness of clinical tests: respiratory distress syndrome as a model

JS Amenta, SC Brocher and AL Serenko-Aber
Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, PA 15261.

Phospholipids in specimens of amniotic fluid from 346 patients were quantified and the results evaluated in light of the clinical outcome. Fifty-eight neonates had respiratory distress syndrome. We used this data base to compare different statistical methods for evaluating test effectiveness and diagnostic discrimination. Dichotomizing quantitative tests into binary tests with arbitrary cutoff values was inadequate for comparing test effectiveness. Subgrouping the data into deciles and calculating the incidence of respiratory distress syndrome for each decile avoided the problems of the preceding approach and was easy to calculate and comprehend; however, this method lacked statistical power. Relative operating characteristic curves yielded more statistical power, but results were more difficult to calculate and were not intuitively obvious to most workers in the laboratory. A modified cumulative frequency plot, combining elements of both decile subgrouping and relative operating characteristic curves, was easily calculated and intuitively obvious. These plots, like relative operating characteristic curves, provided an index for quantifying test effectiveness. When used in combination with standard cumulative frequency curves, they also provided direct diagnostic information on disease probability for any value of the clinical assay.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1988 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.