@davserantes @ASanchez_PS @AnnKumfer @rabihmgeha @DxRxEdu Great question and thanks for the tag. This variability is seen everywhere in the literature, when evaluating other diagnostics (and therapeutics) too.
And itโs all about what was the context, design, and people (both patients and providers) of the study.
1/
And itโs all about what was the context, design, and people (both patients and providers) of the study.
1/
@davserantes @ASanchez_PS @AnnKumfer @rabihmgeha @DxRxEdu I try to get a sense of the *range* of test characteristics (TC) for a given diagnostics, then think about what elements of the technique, patient characteristics, or other contextual factors influence the TC, improve those elements that are modifiable, andโฆ
2/
2/
@davserantes @ASanchez_PS @AnnKumfer @rabihmgeha @DxRxEdu โฆestimate where, within (or outside) the range of the reported TC, my finding in a particular case may sit.
Itโs not necessarily, or even usually, quantitative.. just a ballpark.
3/
Itโs not necessarily, or even usually, quantitative.. just a ballpark.
3/
@davserantes @ASanchez_PS @AnnKumfer @rabihmgeha @DxRxEdu You might enjoy this ๐๐ผ. DM me if you canโt access.
jamanetwork.com
jamanetwork.com
Loading suggestions...