Skip to main content
MedVellum
QuestionsVideosPricing

MedVellum

Fellowship exam preparation across every specialty: source-verified topics, questions in every format, and videos.

Product

  • Specialties
  • Questions
  • Videos
  • Exam tools
  • Pricing

Verification & policy

  • Verified register
  • Editorial policy
  • Privacy
  • Terms

Account

  • Sign in
  • Create account
  • Dashboard
  • Account & billing

© 2026 MedVellum. For education only — not a substitute for clinical judgement.

llms.txtPsychiatry LLM catalogSitemap

Paeds Vivasprofessional-practice-and-evidence

Paeds Vivas · professional-practice-and-evidence

Diagnostic accuracy and screening statistics — branching viva

Viva on diagnostic accuracy, likelihood ratios, screening bias and the appraisal of a diagnostic test in child health.

branching clinical structured oral3 min readVerification in progress

Target exams

RACP DCEMRCPCH ClinicalRCPSC Pediatrics
On this page
Study tools

Target exams

RACP DCEMRCPCH ClinicalRCPSC Pediatrics
Prompt
Journal club: you are given a diagnostic accuracy study claiming a bedside test is 95 percent sensitive and 93 percent specific for a serious paediatric condition; the study recruited from a tertiary referral service, the abstract reports a positive predictive value of 80 percent, and a colleague proposes adopting the test across the community.

Opening (candidate)

I would treat this as a structured appraisal rather than a result handover. First I would judge the study's validity with QUADAS-2 before trusting the headline sensitivity and specificity, then I would ask whether the quoted positive predictive value applies to the community population, and finally I would work out how the test's likelihood ratio moves the probability of disease in an individual child. [9] [4]

Paediatrics Fellowship Pro

Continue reading

You have read the opening of this viva. The complete unit — every section and its primary-source references — is part of the Paediatrics Fellowship fellowship library.

Sign in to continueSee pricing
References6ShowHide
  1. [4]Akobeng AK Understanding diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Acta paediatrica, 2007.PMID 17407452
  2. [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
  3. [7]Deeks JJ, Altman DG Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios. BMJ, 2004.PMID 15258077
  4. [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
  5. [10]Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA, 1999.PMID 10493205
  6. [13]Esserman LJ, Thompson IM, Reid B, et al. Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change. Lancet oncology, 2014.PMID 24807866
Paediatrics Fellowship Pro

$29/ monthor $279 / year

The complete Paediatrics Fellowship library, every exam format, one subscription.

  • Complete library for one chosen specialty
  • Timed MCQ mock exams and spaced review
  • Clinical cases & cross-table vivas
See pricingSign in
PreviousDevelopmentally appropriate communication — branching vivaprofessional-practice-and-evidenceNextEthical allocation of resources in paediatrics — vivaprofessional-practice-and-evidence