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?

Thomas E. Lindow, MD
Amesbury, Mass

JAMA. 1992;268(22):3197.

	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.

—As a nonresearcher clinician, I get confused enough already by statistical terms such as specificity, sensitivity, false-positive, and true-negative. I don't need to be made more confused by those who write the editorials, such as Oesterling in his JAMA Editorial on PSA testing.¹

The study by Carter et al² in the same issue demonstrated an improved specificity, but unimproved or worsened sensitivity of the PSA test for detecting prostate cancer, by using its rate of change per year rather than its absolute value.

Oesterling, in referring to that study, states, "The sensitivity for the rate of change (of PSA) was not significantly better than that for serum PSA concentration." He then contradicts himself with the statement, "Thus, the serum PSA level going from 1.8 µg/L to 2.9 µg/L in 1 year's time would be significant and may lead to the detection of potentially curable prostate . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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