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?

David J. Brunswick, PhD
University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia

JAMA. 1995;274(8):607.

	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 recent article by Dr Gann and colleagues¹ assesses the utility of random screening using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for the detection of prostate cancer. The authors conclude that the use of a single PSA measurement is "highly informative." They evaluated their data using sensitivities (defined as the percentage of prostate cancer cases testing positive for PSA) and specificities (defined as the percentage of prostate cancer—free controls testing negative for PSA). However, sensitivity and specificity values, by themselves, do not determine the usefulness of a diagnostic test. Rather, usefulness is better determined by evaluating positive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs).²

The PPV of a test is the probability that a person with an elevated test value has the disorder in question. Unlike sensitivity and specificity values, PPVs vary depending on the prevalence of the disease in the population. This dependence becomes particularly important . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Footnotes
Edited by Drummond Rennie, MD, Deputy Editor (West), Margaret A. Winker, MD, Senior Editor, and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, Senior Editor.

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