BMJ  2004;329:168-169 (17 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7458.168

Education and debate

Statistics Notes

Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios

¹ Screening and Test Evaluation Program, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia, ² Cancer Research UK/NHS Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Institute for Health Sciences, Oxford OX3 7LF

The properties of a diagnostic or screening test are often described using sensitivity and specificity or predictive values, as described in previous Notes.^{1 2} Likelihood ratios are alternative statistics for summarising diagnostic accuracy, which have several particularly powerful properties that make them more useful clinically than other statistics.³

Each test result has its own likelihood ratio, which summarises how many times more (or less) likely patients with the disease are to have that particular result than patients without the disease. More formally, it is the ratio of the probability of the specific test result in people who do have the disease to the probability in people who do not.

A likelihood ratio greater than 1 indicates that the test result is associated with the presence of the disease, whereas a likelihood ratio less than 1 indicates that the test result is associated with the absence of disease. The further likelihood ratios are from 1 the stronger the evidence for the presence or absence of disease. Likelihood ratios above 10 and below 0.1 are considered to provide strong evidence to rule in or rule out diagnoses respectively in most circumstances.⁴ When tests report results as being either positive or negative the two likelihood ratios are called the positive likelihood ratio and the negative likelihood ratio.

The table shows the results of a study of the value of a history of smoking in diagnosing obstructive airway disease.⁵ Smoking history was categorised into four groups according to pack years smoked (packs per day x years smoked). The likelihood ratio for each category is calculated by dividing the percentage of patients with obstructive airway disease in that category by the percentage without the disease in that category. For example, among patients with the disease 28% had 40+ smoking pack years compared with just 1.4% of patients without the disease. The likelihood ratio is thus 28.4/1.4 = 20.3. A smoking history of more than 40 pack years is strongly predictive of a diagnosis of obstructive airway disease as the likelihood ratio is substantially higher than 10. Although never smoking or smoking less than 20 pack years both point to not having obstructive airway disease, their likelihood ratios are not small enough to rule out the disease with confidence.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Likelihood ratios are ratios of probabilities, and can be treated in the same way as risk ratios for the purposes of calculating confidence intervals6

 

Calculation of post-test probabilities using likelihood ratios Pretest probability = p1 =0.1 pretest odds = p1/(1-p1) = 0.1/0.9 = 0.11 post-test odds = pretest oddsxlikelihood ratio post-test odds = o2 = 0.11x20.43 = 2.27 Post-test probability = o2/(1+ o2) = 2.27/3.37 = 0.69

Likelihood ratios are ratios of probabilities, and can be treated in the same way as risk ratios for the purposes of calculating confidence intervals.⁶

For a test with only two outcomes, likelihood ratios can be calculated directly from sensitivities and specificities.¹ For example, if smoking habit is dichotomised as above or below 40 pack years, the sensitivity is 28.4% (42/148) and specificity 98.6% (142/144). The positive likelihood ratio is the proportion with obstructive airway disease who smoked more than 40 pack years (sensitivity) divided by the proportion without disease who smoked more than 40 pack years (1-specificity), 28.4/1.4 = 20.3, as before. The negative likelihood ratio is the proportion with disease who smoked less than 40 pack years (1-sensitivity) divided by the proportion without disease who smoked less than 40 pack years (specificity), 71.6/98.6 = 0.73. However, unlike sensitivity and specificity, computation of likelihood ratios does not require dichotomisation of test results. Forcing dichotomisation on multicategory test results may discard useful diagnostic information.

Likelihood ratios can be used to help adapt the results of a study to your patients. To do this they make use of a mathematical relationship known as Bayes theorem that describes how a diagnostic finding changes our knowledge of the probability of abnormality.³ The post-test odds that the patient has the disease are estimated by multiplying the pretest odds by the likelihood ratio. The use of odds rather than risks makes the calculation slightly complex (box) but a nomogram can be used to avoid having to make conversions between odds and probabilities (figure).⁷ Both the figure and the box illustrate how a prior probability of obstructive airway disease of 0.1 (based, say, on presenting features) is updated to a probability of 0.7 with the knowledge that the patient had smoked for more than 40 pack years.

View larger version (41K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Use of Fagan's nomogram for calculating post-test probabilities7

 

In clinical practice it is essential to know how a particular test result predicts the risk of abnormality. Sensitivities and specificities¹ do not do this: they describe how abnormality (or normality) predicts particular test results. Predictive values² do give probabilities of abnormality for particular test results, but depend on the prevalence of abnormality in the study sample and can rarely be generalised beyond the study (except when the study is based on a suitable random sample, as is sometimes the case for population screening studies). Likelihood ratios provide a solution as they can be used to calculate the probability of abnormality, while adapting for varying prior probabilities of the chance of abnormality from different contexts.

References

1. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity and specificity. BMJ 1994;308: 1552.[Free Full Text]
2. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: predictive values. BMJ 1994;309: 102.[Free Full Text]
3. Sackett DL, Straus S, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine. How to practise and teach EBM. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2000: 67-93.
4. Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Lijmer J. Diagnostic tests. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, eds. Users' guides to the medical literature. Chicago: AMA Press, 2002: 121-40.
5. Straus SE, McAlister FA, Sackett DL, Deeks JJ. The accuracy of patient history, wheezing, and laryngeal measurements in diagnosing obstructive airway disease. CARE-COAD1 Group. Clinical assessment of the reliability of the examination-chronic obstructive airways disease. JAMA 2000;283: 1853-7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Altman DG. Diagnostic tests. In: Altman DG, Machin D, Bryant TN, Gardner MJ, eds. Statistics with confidence. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books, 2000: 105-19.
7. Fagan TJ. Letter: Nomogram for Bayes theorem. N Engl J Med 1975;293: 257.[ISI][Medline]

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

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Arena, U, Vizzutti, F, Abraldes, J G, Corti, G, Stasi, C, Moscarella, S, Milani, S, Lorefice, E, Petrarca, A, Romanelli, R G, Laffi, G, Bosch, J, Marra, F, Pinzani, M (2008). Reliability of transient elastography for the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Gut 57: 1288-1293 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Tacconelli, E., Cataldo, M. A., De Pascale, G., Manno, D., Spanu, T., Cambieri, A., Antonelli, M., Sanguinetti, M., Fadda, G., Cauda, R. (2008). Prediction models to identify hospitalized patients at risk of being colonized or infected with multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii calcoaceticus complex. J Antimicrob Chemother 0: dkn289v1-8 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Nordin, E., Lindelof, N., Rosendahl, E., Jensen, J., Lundin-olsson, L. (2008). Prognostic validity of the Timed Up-and-Go test, a modified Get-Up-and-Go test, staff's global judgement and fall history in evaluating fall risk in residential care facilities. Age Ageing 37: 442-448 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Hachamovitch, R., Di Carli, M. F. (2008). Methods and Limitations of Assessing New Noninvasive Tests: Part I: Anatomy-Based Validation of Noninvasive Testing. Circulation 117: 2684-2690 [Full text]  
• Cnossen, J. S, Vollebregt, K. C, Vrieze, N. d., Riet, G. t., Mol, B. W J, Franx, A., Khan, K. S, Post, J. A M v. d. (2008). Accuracy of mean arterial pressure and blood pressure measurements in predicting pre-eclampsia: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 336: 1117-1120 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Valenzano Menada, M., Remorgida, V., Abbamonte, L.H., Nicoletti, A., Ragni, N., Ferrero, S. (2008). Does transvaginal ultrasonography combined with water-contrast in the rectum aid in the diagnosis of rectovaginal endometriosis infiltrating the bowel?. Hum Reprod 23: 1069-1075 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Kragt, J. J., Thompson, A. J., Montalban, X., Tintore, M., Rio, J., Polman, C. H., Uitdehaag, B.M.J. (2008). Responsiveness and predictive value of EDSS and MSFC in primary progressive MS. Neurology 70: 1084-1091 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Cnossen, J. S. MD, Morris, R. K. MD, ter Riet, G. MD PhD, Mol, B. W.J. MD PhD, van der Post, J. A.M. MD PhD, Coomarasamy, A. MD, Zwinderman, A. H. MSc PhD, Robson, S. C. MD, Bindels, P. J.E. MD PhD, Kleijnen, J. MD PhD, Khan, K. S. MD (2008). Use of uterine artery Doppler ultrasonography to predict pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction: a systematic review and bivariable meta-analysis. CMAJ 178: 701-711 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Rutter, M. K., Wilson, P. W.F., Sullivan, L. M., Fox, C. S., D'Agostino, R. B. Sr, Meigs, J. B. (2008). Use of Alternative Thresholds Defining Insulin Resistance to Predict Incident Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiovascular Disease. Circulation 117: 1003-1009 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Lundy, C. T, Doherty, G. M, Hicks, E. M (2007). Should creatine kinase be checked in all boys presenting with speech delay?. Arch. Dis. Child. 92: 647-649 [Full text]  
• Thompson, I. M., Ankerst, D. P. (2007). Prostate-specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer. CMAJ 176: 1853-1858 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Harris, B., Bailey, D., Miles, S., Bailey, E., Rogers, K., Roach, P., Thomas, P., Hensley, M., King, G. G. (2007). Objective Analysis of Tomographic Ventilation-Perfusion Scintigraphy in Pulmonary Embolism. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 175: 1173-1180 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Levi, Z., Rozen, P., Hazazi, R., Vilkin, A., Waked, A., Maoz, E., Birkenfeld, S., Leshno, M., Niv, Y. (2007). A Quantitative Immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Test for Colorectal Neoplasia. ANN INTERN MED 146: 244-255 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Cappelli, C., Castellano, M., Pirola, I., Cumetti, D., Agosti, B., Gandossi, E., Agabiti Rosei, E. (2007). The predictive value of ultrasound findings in the management of thyroid nodules. QJM 100: 29-35 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Rona, R. J, Hooper, R., Jones, M., Hull, L., Browne, T., Horn, O., Murphy, D., Hotopf, M., Wessely, S. (2006). Mental health screening in armed forces before the Iraq war and prevention of subsequent psychological morbidity: follow-up study. BMJ 333: 991-991 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Perera, R., Heneghan, C. (2006). Making sense of diagnostic tests likelihood ratios. Evid. Based Med. 11: 130-131 [Full text]  
• Zhang, W, Doherty, M, Pascual, E, Bardin, T, Barskova, V, Conaghan, P, Gerster, J, Jacobs, J, Leeb, B, Liote, F, McCarthy, G, Netter, P, Nuki, G, Perez-Ruiz, F, Pignone, A, Pimentao, J, Punzi, L, Roddy, E, Uhlig, T, Zimmermann-Gorska, I (2006). EULAR evidence based recommendations for gout. Part I: Diagnosis. Report of a task force of the standing committee for international clinical studies including therapeutics (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis 65: 1301-1311 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Hoffmann, S, Hartung, T (2006). Toward an evidence-based toxicology. Hum Exp Toxicol 25: 497-513 [Abstract]  
• Wingerchuk, D. M., Lennon, V. A., Pittock, S. J., Lucchinetti, C. F., Weinshenker, B. G. (2006). Revised diagnostic criteria for neuromyelitis optica. Neurology 66: 1485-1489 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Vasan, R. S. (2006). Biomarkers of Cardiovascular Disease: Molecular Basis and Practical Considerations. Circulation 113: 2335-2362 [Full text]  
• Whiting, P., Harbord, R., Main, C., Deeks, J. J, Filippini, G., Egger, M., Sterne, J. A C (2006). Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: systematic review. BMJ 332: 875-884 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Hilmarsdottir, I., Hauksdottir, G. S., Johannesdottir, J. D., Danielsdottir, T., Thorsteinsdottir, H., Olafsson, J. H. (2006). Evaluation of a rapid gram stain interpretation method for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis.. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44: 1139-1140 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Whaley, A. L., Rodriguez, R., Alexander, L. A. (2006). Development of a Rating Form to Evaluate Grant Applications to the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health. Eval Rev 30: 3-26 [Abstract]  
• Melillo, E., Ferrari, M., Balbarini, A., Pedrinelli, R. (2005). Transcutaneous Gases Determination in Diabetic Critical Limb Ischemia. Diabetes Care 28: 2081-2082 [Full text]  
• R Richter, R., Reinking, M. F (2005). How does evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of the vertebral artery test influence teaching of the test in a professional physical therapist education program?. ptjournal 85: 589-599 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Likelihood ratios for dynamic decision-making

Alireza Moayyeri, et al.
bmj.com, 5 Aug 2004 [Full text]