Paeds SAQs · professional-practice-and-evidence
Diagnostic accuracy and screening statistics — formative SAQs
Formative SAQs on diagnostic accuracy and screening statistics applied to child health.
On this page & tools
Target exams
SAQ 1 (10 marks)
A newborn bloodspot screen for a rare metabolic condition comes back positive in an otherwise well baby. The test has a sensitivity of 99 percent and a specificity of 99 percent, and the condition affects 1 in 10,000 babies. [4]
- Build the 2×2 table for a population of 10,000 babies and calculate the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value. (5) [4] [1]
- Explain why the positive predictive value is so low despite the excellent specificity, and name the principle that governs it. (3) [4]
- Describe how you would counsel the family and what the next step is. (2) [4] [13]
Model answer
Of 10,000 babies, one is truly affected (prevalence 1 in 10,000) and 9,999 are well. With a sensitivity of 99 percent, the test catches the single true case as one true positive. With a specificity of 99 percent, one percent of the 9,999 well babies test falsely positive, giving about 100 false positives. Sensitivity is one true positive divided by one affected, or 99 percent; specificity is about 9,899 true negatives divided by 9,999 well, or 99 percent; the positive predictive value is one true positive divided by about 101 positives, or roughly 1 percent. [4] [1]
The positive predictive value is low because it is a function of prevalence, not of the test's intrinsic quality. In a low-prevalence population the many false positives thrown up by the large healthy majority overwhelm the single true case, so even a 99 percent specific test yields mostly false positives. Sensitivity and specificity are fixed properties of the test at its threshold, but the predictive value inherits the ratio of diseased to well, which is what prevalence sets. [4]
I would counsel the family that most babies with a positive screen are well, that the screen is a reason to confirm rather than a diagnosis, and that the next step is the reference-standard confirmatory test. I would avoid conveying a diagnosis before confirmation and would acknowledge the anxiety the screen has caused. [4] [13]
You have read the opening of this SAQ. The complete unit — every section and its primary-source references — is part of the Paediatrics Fellowship fellowship atlas.
References7Show ledgerHide ledger
- [1]Griner PF, Mayewski RJ, Mushlin AI, Greenland P Selection and interpretation of diagnostic tests and procedures. Principles and applications. Annals of internal medicine, 1981.PMID 6452080
- [4]Akobeng AK Understanding diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Acta paediatrica, 2007.PMID 17407452
- [10]Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA, 1999.PMID 10493205
- [5]Akobeng AK Understanding diagnostic tests 2: likelihood ratios, pre- and post-test probabilities and their use in clinical practice. Acta paediatrica, 2007.PMID 17306009
- [7]Deeks JJ, Altman DG Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios. BMJ, 2004.PMID 15258077
- [9]Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Annals of internal medicine, 2011.PMID 22007046
- [13]Esserman LJ, Thompson IM, Reid B, et al. Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change. Lancet oncology, 2014.PMID 24807866