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?

Bradley A. Woodruff, MD, MPH; Roy C. Baron, MD, MPH
Centers for Disease Control Charleston, WVa

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.—

The measures of accuracy in clinical screening or diagnosis relate to the intrinsic ability of a procedure to identify correctly those persons with disease (sensitivity) and those persons without disease (specificity).¹ In a recent article entitled "The Sensitivity and Specificity of Clinical Diagnostics During Five Decades,"² the authors use the terms clinical accuracy for a positive diagnosis and clinical accuracy for a negative diagnosis and equate them by definition to the positive predictive value (the proportion of positive tests or diagnoses that correctly identify the presence of disease) and the negative predictive value (the proportion of negative tests that correctly identify the absence of disease), respectively. Unlike sensitivity and specificity, the predictive values are not properties inherent to the procedure itself, but vary with the prevalence of disease in the population tested.

For example, the authors state that "the accuracy of the clinical diagnosis . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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