Suppr超能文献

质疑临床检测中的“SPIN与SNOUT”规则。

Questioning the "SPIN and SNOUT" rule in clinical testing.

作者信息

Baeyens Jean-Pierre, Serrien Ben, Goossens Maggie, Clijsen Ron

机构信息

1Faculty Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussel, Belgium.

International University of Applied Sciences THIM, Weststrasse 8, 7302 Landquart, Switzerland.

出版信息

Arch Physiother. 2019 Mar 7;9:4. doi: 10.1186/s40945-019-0056-5. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

Specificity (SP) and sensitivity (SE) answer the question 'what is the chance of a positive or negative test in response to the presence or absence of a clinical condition?'. Related to SP and SE are the diagnostic procedures of SNOUT and SPIN. SNOUT is the acronym for 'Sensitive test when Negative rules OUT the disease', SPIN for, 'Specific test when Positive rules IN the disease'. SE and SP are incomplete because for clinical diagnosis, the question of concern should actually be: 'what is the chance that the clinical condition will be present or absent in the context of a positive or negative test result?'. The latter statement is related to the concepts of Positive and Negative Predictive Value (PPV and NPV). However, PPV and NPV are predictive values not only dependent on SE and SP but also largely dependent on the prevalence in the examined population. Consequently, predictive values from one study should not be transferred to some other setting with a different prevalence. Prevalence affects PPV and NPV differently. PPV is increasing, while NPV decreases with the increase of the prevalence. This makes prevalence the nemesis in the application of the predictive values. Therefore, another variable has been introduced to evaluate the strength of a diagnostic test, namely the likelihood ratio. Likelihood ratios determine how much more likely a particular test result is among people who have the clinical condition of interest than it is among people who do not have the condition. LIKELIHOOD RATIO (LR) is the ratio of two probabilities. This letter illustrates the limitations of the concepts of SE, SP, NPV, PPV and the LRs in context of specific shoulder tests.

摘要

特异性(SP)和敏感性(SE)回答的问题是“针对临床状况的存在或不存在,阳性或阴性检测的可能性是多少?”。与SP和SE相关的是SNOUT和SPIN诊断程序。SNOUT是“Sensitive test when Negative rules OUT the disease”(阴性时敏感检测排除疾病)的首字母缩写,SPIN是“Specific test when Positive rules IN the disease”(阳性时特异检测确诊疾病)的首字母缩写。SE和SP并不完整,因为对于临床诊断,实际关注的问题应该是:“在阳性或阴性检测结果的情况下,临床状况存在或不存在的可能性是多少?”。后一种表述与阳性和阴性预测值(PPV和NPV)的概念相关。然而,PPV和NPV是预测值,不仅取决于SE和SP,还在很大程度上取决于所检查人群中的患病率。因此,一项研究的预测值不应转移到患病率不同的其他环境中。患病率对PPV和NPV的影响不同。随着患病率的增加,PPV增加,而NPV降低。这使得患病率成为预测值应用中的克星。因此,引入了另一个变量来评估诊断测试的强度,即似然比。似然比确定在患有感兴趣临床状况的人群中,特定检测结果比在未患该状况的人群中出现的可能性高多少。似然比(LR)是两个概率的比值。这封信说明了在特定肩部测试背景下SE、SP、NPV、PPV和LR概念的局限性。

相似文献

1
Questioning the "SPIN and SNOUT" rule in clinical testing.
Arch Physiother. 2019 Mar 7;9:4. doi: 10.1186/s40945-019-0056-5. eCollection 2019.
4
Diagnostic test accuracy of nutritional tools used to identify undernutrition in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 May 15;13(4):141-87. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1673.
8
Bounding the Accuracy of Diagnostic Tests, With Application to COVID-19 Antibody Tests.
Epidemiology. 2021 Mar 1;32(2):162-167. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001309.
9
The Value of Multi-targeted Fecal DNA Methylation Detection for Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Chinese Population.
J Cancer. 2021 Jan 15;12(6):1644-1650. doi: 10.7150/jca.47214. eCollection 2021.
10
Post-test diagnostic accuracy measures under tree ordering of disease classes.
Stat Med. 2023 Dec 10;42(28):5135-5159. doi: 10.1002/sim.9905. Epub 2023 Sep 18.

引用本文的文献

2
Development of oculomotor digital biomarkers using clinical examinations as "Ground Truth".
Front Hum Neurosci. 2025 May 21;19:1556451. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2025.1556451. eCollection 2025.

本文引用的文献

1
Physical examination tests of the shoulder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 Jan 25;18(1):41. doi: 10.1186/s12891-017-1400-0.
2
SLAP Lesions: Trends in Treatment.
Arthroscopy. 2016 Jun;32(6):976-81. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.11.044. Epub 2016 Feb 20.
3
A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Oct;66(10):1093-104. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.014. Epub 2013 Aug 17.
4
Sociology of diagnosis: a preliminary review.
Sociol Health Illn. 2009 Mar;31(2):278-99. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2008.01152.x. Epub 2009 Feb 11.
5
Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods.
Health Technol Assess. 2007 Dec;11(50):iii, ix-51. doi: 10.3310/hta11500.
6
Simplifying likelihood ratios.
J Gen Intern Med. 2002 Aug;17(8):646-9. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10750.x.
7
The architecture of diagnostic research.
BMJ. 2002 Mar 2;324(7336):539-41. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7336.539.
10
Letter: Nomogram for Bayes's theorem.
N Engl J Med. 1975 Jul 31;293(5):257. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197507312930513.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验