Background: An increasing number of diagnostic tests and biomarkers have been validated during the last decades, and this will still be a prominent field of research in the future because of the need for personalized medicine. Strict evaluation is needed whenever we aim at validating any potential diagnostic tool, and the first requirement a new testing procedure must fulfill is diagnostic accuracy. Summary: Diagnostic accuracy measures tell us about the ability of a test to discriminate between and/or predict disease and health. This discriminative and predictive potential can be quantified by measures of diagnostic accuracy such as sensitivity and specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, overall accuracy and diagnostic odds ratio. Some measures are useful for discriminative purposes, while others serve as a predictive tool. Measures of diagnostic accuracy vary in the way they depend on the prevalence, spectrum and definition of the disease. In general, measures of diagnostic accuracy are extremely sensitive to the design of the study. Studies not meeting strict methodological standards usually over- or underestimate the indicators of test performance and limit the applicability of the results of the study. Key Messages: The testing procedure should be verified on a reasonable population, including people with mild and severe disease, thus providing a comparable spectrum. Sensitivities and specificities are not predictive measures. Predictive values depend on disease prevalence, and their conclusions can be transposed to other settings only for studies which are based on a suitable population (e.g. screening studies). Likelihood ratios should be an optimal choice for reporting diagnostic accuracy. Diagnostic accuracy measures must be reported with their confidence intervals. We always have to report paired measures (sensitivity and specificity, predictive values or likelihood ratios) for clinically meaningful thresholds. How much discriminative or predictive power we need depends on the clinical diagnostic pathway and on misclassification (false positives/negatives) costs.

1.
Whiteley W, Wardlaw J, Dennis M, Lowe G, Rumley A, Sattar N, Welsh P, Green A, Andrews M, Graham C, Sandercock P: Blood biomarkers for the diagnosis of acute cerebrovascular diseases: a prospective cohort study. Cerebrovasc Dis 2011;32:141-147.
2.
Koffijberg H, van Zaane B, Moons KGM: From accuracy to patient outcome and cost-effectiveness evaluations of diagnostic tests and biomarkers: an exemplary modelling study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13:12.
3.
Tamura A, Yamamoto Y, Nagakane Y, Takezawa H, Koizumi T, Makita N, Makino M: The relationship between neurological worsening and lesion patterns in patients with acute middle cerebral artery stenosis. Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;35:268-275.
4.
Montori VM, Wyer P, Newman TB, Keitz S, Guyatt G, Evidence-Based Medicine Teaching Tips Working Group: Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine. 5. The effect of spectrum of disease on the performance of diagnostic tests. CMAJ 2005;173:385-390.
5.
Altman DG, Bland JM: Diagnostic tests. 1. Sensitivity and specificity. BMJ 1994;308:1552.
6.
Altman DG, Bland JM: Diagnostic tests. 2. Predictive values. BMJ 1994;309:102.
7.
Deeks JJ, Altman DG: Diagnostic tests. 4. Likelihood ratios. BMJ 2004;329:168.
8.
Zou KH, O'Malley AJ, Mauri LL: Receiver-operating characteristic analysis for evaluating diagnostic tests and predictive models. Circulation 2007;115:654-657.
9.
Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM: The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:1129-1135.
10.
Rorick MB, Nichols FT, Adams RJ: Transcranial Doppler correlation with angiography in detection of intracranial stenosis. Stroke 1994;25:1931-1934.
11.
Navarro JC, Lao AY, Sharma VK, Tsivgoulis G, Alexandrov AV: The accuracy of transcranial Doppler in the diagnosis of middle cerebral artery stenosis. Cerebrovasc Dis 2007;23:325-330.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.