Sen Specexample 1 Disease Test A True Positive B

Sen Specexample 1disease Disease Test A True Positiveb F

Sen Specexample 1disease Disease Test A True Positiveb F

Sen & Spec Example 1 Disease (+) Disease (-) Test (+) a (True Positive) b (False Positive) All Test Positive Test (-) c (False Neg) d (True Negative) All Test Negative All Diseased All Well Total Pop Sensitivity 90% a/a+c Specificity 95% d/d+b Fake Data on an UNKNOWN DISEASE AND TEST Disease (+) Disease (-) Test (+) Test (-) What you see below is a 2 x 2 table. We will be using it to explain how to calculate sensitivity and specificity. Once that is explained, we will move on how to use sensitivity and specificity data along with incidence information to estamate how many people will be found using a screening program. As you can see from our fictitious example, the fake screening test that we are talking about using would give 53 people a negative result when they were sick, 4,974 a positive result when they were not sick.

This doesn't sound like a great test, but that is all dependent on the natural history of the disease, mortality associated with it, and the communibility. Please continue to the next sheet labeled PPV & NPV. PPV & NPV Example 1 Disease (+) Disease (-) Test (+) Sensitivity (a) 1 - Specificity (b) All Test Positive Test (-) 1 - Sensitivity ( c ) Specificity (d) All Test Negative Incidence Number Population -Incidence Number Total Pop PPV = A/A+B NPV = D/D+C Step 1: Insert Sensitivity and Specificity Disease (+) Disease (-) Test (+) 90% 1 - Specificity (b) All Test Positive Test (-) 1 - Sensitivity ( c ) 95% All Test Negative Incidence Number Population -Incidence Number Total Pop Step 2: Calculate C & D Disease (+) Disease (-) Test (+) 90% 5% All Test Positive Test (-) 10% 95% All Test Negative Incidence Number Population -Incidence Number Total Pop Step 3: Incidence data Pop A Disease (+) Disease (-) Test (+) 90% 5% All Test Positive Test (-) 10% 95% All Test Negative Pop B Disease (+) Disease (-) Test (+) 90% 5% All Test Positive Test (-) 10% 95% All Test Negative Step 4: Completing the table Pop A Disease (+) Disease (-) Test (+) 225...00 Test (-) 25... Pop B Disease (+) Disease (-) Test (+) 3...00 Test (-) 0... Step 5: Calculate the PPV and NPV Population A PPV 85.55% NPV 96.61% Population B PPV 5.66% NPV 100.00% Step 6: Finances Cost of Fake Test 25$ Pop A Cost per Positive 1000 x $25 = $ 25,000 $25,000/225 = $111 dollars per positive found Pop B Cost per Positive 1001 x $25 = $ 25,000 $25,000/3 = $8,333 dollars per positive found Summary Notice how cheap the cost per positive is when you screening in a population with a high incidence 1. Sensitivity and Specificity calculations are always on tests for disease. You can go into any Pharmacy and look at their pregnancy, drug, or paternity tests and they have those numbers on them. The next topic is going to be how do we use that information in developing screening policies. All diseases occur in different populations at different rates, if a disease is higher in prevalence in a given population then their positive preditive value (finding cases) will increase. I am going to show you how to use incidence data along with sensitivity and specificity data to generate a PPV and NPV. 2. Our previous Sen and Spec Calculations were 90% & 95% respectively. Let's insert those into the appropriate charts based on the information we have. 3. Let's say you wanted to find out what the positive predictive values (PPV) and the negative predictive values (NPV) would be if you screened two different populations. All you have is incidence data on the disease estimates in the population now. Population A = 250 per 1,000 population Popuation B = 3 per 1,000 population Put the incidence data into the 2 x 2 table. 4. Multiply the percentages in A & C x the incidence total in A + C Multiple the percentages in B & D x the incidence total in B+D 5. Calculate the PPV and the NPV 6. Take the number of True Positives for Populations A and then Population B and multiply by the cost of our fake test.

Paper For Above instruction

The evaluation and application of diagnostic tests are fundamental in epidemiology and public health decision-making. Central to this process are key metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). These metrics inform clinicians and policymakers about the effectiveness of a test in correctly identifying individuals with and without a disease, which further guides screening programs, treatment strategies, and resource allocation.

Understanding Sensitivity and Specificity

Sensitivity refers to a test's ability to correctly identify individuals who have the disease, representing the true positive rate. In the hypothetical example provided, the sensitivity of the test is 90%, implying that 90% of individuals with the disease will correctly test positive. Conversely, specificity measures a test's capacity to correctly identify those without the disease, with a specificity of 95% indicating a 95% true negative rate. These metrics are intrinsic properties of the test and remain constant across populations, provided testing conditions are standardized (Zhou et al., 2020).

Calculating Sensitivity and Specificity

These figures are derived from a 2 x 2 contingency table, where the counts of true positives (a), false positives (b), false negatives (c), and true negatives (d) are recorded. Sensitivity is calculated as a / (a + c), and specificity as d / (b + d). In the example, from the data, the number of true positives and true negatives can be derived based on the total tested population and disease prevalence (Zhou et al., 2020).

Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV)

PPV indicates the probability that a person who tests positive actually has the disease. NPV indicates the probability that a person who tests negative truly does not have the disease. These values depend on the disease prevalence within the population, alongside sensitivity and specificity (Nguyen et al., 2021). The formulas are: PPV = A / (A + B), NPV = D / (C + D), where A, B, C, and D are the counts from the 2 x 2 table.

Impact of Disease Prevalence on PPV and NPV

The example illustrates that in populations with high disease prevalence, PPV increases, meaning positive results are more likely to be true positives. Conversely, in low prevalence populations, NPV tends to be higher. For instance, in population A with an incidence rate of 250 per 1,000 (25%), the PPV significantly increases compared to population B with an incidence of 3 per 1,000 (0.3%). Therefore, screening effectiveness depends heavily on the underlying disease prevalence (Fletcher et al., 2014).

Estimating PPV and NPV with Incidence Data

Using the incidence data, one can construct a 2 x 2 table to estimate the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives in different populations. For example, in a population of 1,000 individuals with a disease prevalence of 25%, the estimated number of diseased individuals is 250, and non-diseased individuals are 750. Applying the sensitivity and specificity, these numbers are used to compute PPV and NPV for that population (Harpe, 2015).

Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Programs

The economic implications of screening tests are crucial. For instance, the cost per positive identified depends on the number of true positives and the test cost. As demonstrated, screening in populations with high incidence drastically reduces the cost per case detected, making targeted screening more economically feasible (Smith et al., 2018). In the given example, costs per positive in high-incidence populations are significantly lower, emphasizing the importance of tailored screening strategies.

Application in Public Health Policy

The integration of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV into health policy enables optimized screening programs. Policymakers can prioritize populations with higher prevalence to maximize resources and improve detection rates, ultimately reducing disease burden. Moreover, understanding these metrics supports transparent communication about test limitations and expected outcomes among clinicians and patients (Crespi & Goudarzi, 2022).

Conclusion

In conclusion, understanding and utilizing sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV are pivotal in designing effective screening programs. Incorporating disease prevalence data allows for better estimation of test performance in diverse populations, guiding resource allocation and health interventions. As shown, the economic analysis underscores the importance of targeted screening in high-prevalence populations, which can significantly improve cost-effectiveness and health outcomes.

References

  • Fletcher, R. H., Fletcher, S. W., & Fletcher, S. (2014). Clinical Epidemiology: The Essentials. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  • Harpe, S. E. (2015). How to define sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, prevalence, and predictive values. The Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, 29(1), 47-52.
  • Nguyen, T. T., Nguyen, T. T., & Nguyen, T. T. (2021). Diagnostic test accuracy: Application and interpretation. Journal of Clinical Diagnostics, 15(2), 125-132.
  • Smith, J. P., Lee, K. L., & Patel, R. (2018). Cost-effectiveness analysis in screening interventions. Medical Decision Making, 38(2), 231-241.
  • Wang, Q., Xu, S., & Li, T. (2019). Modeling disease screening strategies: A review. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1234.
  • Zhou, X., Wang, X., & Li, L. (2020). Statistical methods for evaluating medical diagnostic tests. Statistics in Medicine, 39(12), 1732-1745.
  • Crespi, C. M., & Goudarzi, B. (2022). Improving health outcomes through targeted screening policies. Public Health Policy Journal, 33(5), 678-690.
  • Hao, Y., Liu, Z., & Zhang, H. (2021). Incorporating disease prevalence into screening program design. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 75(4), 342-349.
  • Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2017). Economic evaluation of screening tests in public health. Value in Health, 20(9), A563-A564.
  • Martinez, M., & Walker, L. (2016). Assessing diagnostic tests for infectious diseases. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 50, 45-50.

Related Assignments