Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
LetterLetters

Correct math shows no improvement on clinical judgment

Bob Bernstein
Canadian Family Physician March 2020, 66 (3) 165;
Bob Bernstein
Toronto, Ont
MD CCFP FCFP(LM)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

I have a problem with the math in Table 1 of the article “Chest pain investigation in patients at low or intermediate risk. What is the best first-line test to rule out coronary artery disease?” which appeared in the January issue of Canadian Family Physician.1 First, pretest probability is not actually specified, but let us do the calculations using 10% as low risk and 50% as intermediate risk. I will also take the midpoint of the reported ranges of sensitivity and specificity for the purposes of illustration.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Pretest likelihood of 10% (low risk): Sensitivity of 85%, specificity of 50%, positive predictive value of 16% (85/535), negative predictive value of 97% (450/465).

The following 2 × 2 tables are generated, the first using a pretest likelihood of 10% and the second using 50%; both use an N of 1000 (Tables 1 and 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Pretest likelihood of 50% (intermediate risk): Sensitivity of 85%, specificity of 50%, positive predictive value of 63% (425/675), negative predictive value of 77% (250/325).

In neither case are the predictive values reported in Table 1 in the original article (positive predictive value [PPV] of 44% to 64% and negative predictive value [NPV] of 95% to 100%) accurate and in neither case is this test alone a good enough clinical tool.

In the first case of low pretest likelihood, we have little confidence in either the PPV or NPV, and the test improves very little on our clinical judgment. The PPV is only 16%. We go from 10% certain the patient has coronary artery disease (CAD) to 16% certain. The NPV is 97%, which is only an absolute 7% better than the pretest likelihood based on clinical judgment! We go from 90% certain to 97% certain the patient does not have CAD. This illustrates the fallacy of testing when pretest probabilities are low.

In the second case, where the clinical judgment is equivalent to a coin toss, the PPV is 63% and the NPV is 77%. We go from 50% sure the patient has CAD to 63% sure, and 50% sure the patient does not have CAD to 77% sure.

I would assert that a second test is needed in both the positive and negative groups. The positives need to be tested with a test of high specificity, and the negatives need to be tested with a test of greater sensitivity, which is why the patient in the clinical vignette proceeded ultimately to angiography.

I suspect but I cannot prove that our clinical judgments are more refined than we believe. As generalists, we look at the whole picture, the nature of the concern along with family history, lifestyle risk factors—diet, smoking, exercise—blood pressure, lipid levels, and medications. In general practice, the low-probability cases are weeded out on clinical grounds alone, leaving the intermediate- and high-probability cases for referral. Emergency physicians have a different dilemma and I will leave it to them to comment further. Either way, the search for absolute certainty is a fool’s errand and we need to know how to manage uncertainty in conversation with our patients.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests

    None declared

  • Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada

Reference

  1. 1.↵
    1. Brenna CTA,
    2. Afgani FJ,
    3. Hanneman K,
    4. Levitan D,
    5. Udell JA,
    6. Bhatia RS,
    7. et al
    . Chest pain investigation in patients at low or intermediate risk. What is the best first-line test to rule out coronary artery disease? Can Fam Physician 2020;66:24-30. (Eng), e1–8 (Fr).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 66 (3)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 66, Issue 3
1 Mar 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Correct math shows no improvement on clinical judgment
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Correct math shows no improvement on clinical judgment
Bob Bernstein
Canadian Family Physician Mar 2020, 66 (3) 165;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Correct math shows no improvement on clinical judgment
Bob Bernstein
Canadian Family Physician Mar 2020, 66 (3) 165;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • Reference
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Aggregate values, not arithmetic
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Response to Lavergne et al
  • Family medicine drives improvement in diabetes care
  • Natural history of abdominal pain in family practice
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2023 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire