Statistics in Medicine

The (In)Validity of sensitivity and specificity

Journal Article

  • Author(s): Irene Guggenmoos‐Holzmann, Hans C. van Houwelingen
  • Article first published online: 14 Jun 2000
  • DOI: 10.1002/1097-0258(20000715)19:13<1783::AID-SIM497>3.0.CO;2-B
  • Read on Online Library
  • Subscribe to Journal

Abstract

This paper is a legacy of the first author, and after her untimely death reconstructed by the second author as a tribute to Irene Guggenmoos's contribution to biostatistics. It discusses two different views on diagnostic testing: the classical view in which sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic test are considered universal constants, and the more statistical point of view that focuses on predictive values. The differences between the two paradigms are outlined and practical examples are discussed to show that the familiar concepts of sensitivity and specificity must be handled with care and not used indiscriminately. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Related Topics

Related Publications

Related Content

Site Footer

Address:

This website is provided by John Wiley & Sons Limited, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ (Company No: 00641132, VAT No: 376766987)

Published features on StatisticsViews.com are checked for statistical accuracy by a panel from the European Network for Business and Industrial Statistics (ENBIS)   to whom Wiley and StatisticsViews.com express their gratitude. This panel are: Ron Kenett, David Steinberg, Shirley Coleman, Irena Ograjenšek, Fabrizio Ruggeri, Rainer Göb, Philippe Castagliola, Xavier Tort-Martorell, Bart De Ketelaere, Antonio Pievatolo, Martina Vandebroek, Lance Mitchell, Gilbert Saporta, Helmut Waldl and Stelios Psarakis.