We have located links that may give you full text access.
Number Needed to Diagnose, Predict, or Misdiagnose: Useful Metrics for Non-Canonical Signs of Cognitive Status?
Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra 2018 September
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: Data sets from pragmatic diagnostic accuracy studies examining easily observed and dichotomised neurological signs ("attended alone" sign, "attended with" sign, head turning sign, applause sign, la maladie du petit papier ) 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.
Methods: Data sets from pragmatic diagnostic accuracy studies examining easily observed and dichotomised neurological signs ("attended alone" sign, "attended with" sign, head turning sign, applause sign, la maladie du petit papier ) 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.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app