This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Douglas K. Miller, MD
St Louis (Mo) University Medical Center School of Medicine

JAMA. 1989;262(3):350.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

There was a confusing explanation of sensitivity and specificity in the article by Anderson et al¹ in the March 17 issue. Assuming proper use of the terms true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives, sensitivity and specificity are defined correctly in the "Methods" section and in the footnote to Table 1. However, it appears that the correct positions of false negatives and false positives were switched in Table 1 (Table).

This distinction is important, because if the data for all subsequent tables were analyzed as described in the published Table 1, then what is reported as the sensitivity is actually the predictive value of a positive, and the reported clinical accuracy of a positive diagnosis is actually the sensitivity. A similar switch would also have occurred with the specificity and the clinical accuracy of a negative diagnosis. . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?