Likelihood ratios: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
m (Rossdonaldson1 moved page Likelihood Ratios to Likelihood ratios)
 
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Likelihood Ratio Approximate Change in Probability (%)==
==Likelihood Ratio Approximate Change in Probability (%)==


Values between 0 and 1 decrease the probability of disease
{| {{table}}
*0.1 −45%
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''LR'''
*0.2 −30%
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Post-Test Probablility Change'''
*0.3 −25%
|-
*0.4 −20%
| 9-10||45%
*0.5 −15%
|-
*1 - 0%
| 7-8||40%
 
|-
Values greater than 1 increase the probability of disease
| 6||35%
*2 +15%
|-
*3 +20%
| 5||30%
*4 +25%
|-
*5 +30%
| 4||25%
*6 +35%
|-
*7 8 +40%
| 3||20%
*9 10 +45%
|-
 
| 2||15%
|-
| '''1'''||'''0%'''
|-
| 0.5||-15%
|-
| 0.4||-20%
|-
| 0.3||-25%
|-
| 0.2||-30%
|-
| 0.1||-45%
|}
*Values <1 decrease the probability of disease
*Values >1 increase the probability of disease


==Comments<ref>J Gen Intern Med. 2002 August; 17(8): 647–650.</ref>==
An easy way to recall at the bedside by simply remembering 3 specific LRs 2, 5, and 10—and the first 3 multiples of 15 (i.e., 15, 30, and 45). An LR of 2 increases probability 15%, one of 5 increases it 30%, and one of 10 increases it 45%. For those LRs between 0 and 1, the clinician simply inverts 2, 5, and 10 (i.e., 1/2 = 0.5, 1/5 = 0.2, 1/10 = 0.1). Just as the LR of 2.0 increases probability 15%, its inverse, 0.5, decreases probability 15%. Similarly, an LR of 0.2 (the inverse of 5) decreases probability 30%, and a LR of 0.1 (the inverse of 10) decreases it 45%. These benchmark LRs can be used to approximate the remainder of Table 1.
An easy way to recall at the bedside by simply remembering 3 specific LRs 2, 5, and 10—and the first 3 multiples of 15 (i.e., 15, 30, and 45). An LR of 2 increases probability 15%, one of 5 increases it 30%, and one of 10 increases it 45%. For those LRs between 0 and 1, the clinician simply inverts 2, 5, and 10 (i.e., 1/2 = 0.5, 1/5 = 0.2, 1/10 = 0.1). Just as the LR of 2.0 increases probability 15%, its inverse, 0.5, decreases probability 15%. Similarly, an LR of 0.2 (the inverse of 5) decreases probability 30%, and a LR of 0.1 (the inverse of 10) decreases it 45%. These benchmark LRs can be used to approximate the remainder of Table 1.


Although this method is inaccurate for pretest probabilities less than 10% or greater than 90%, this is not a disadvantage, because these polar extremes of probability indicate diagnostic certainty for most clinical problems, making it unnecessary to order further tests (and apply additional LRs).
Although this method is inaccurate for pretest probabilities less than 10% or greater than 90%, this is not a disadvantage, because these polar extremes of probability indicate diagnostic certainty for most clinical problems, making it unnecessary to order further tests (and apply additional LRs).


<br>
==References==
 
<references/>
==Source==
J Gen Intern Med. 2002 August; 17(8): 647–650.


[[Category:Misc/General]]
[[Category:Misc/General]]
[[Category:EBQ]]
[[Category:EBQ]]

Latest revision as of 22:48, 21 January 2017

Likelihood Ratio Approximate Change in Probability (%)

LR Post-Test Probablility Change
9-10 45%
7-8 40%
6 35%
5 30%
4 25%
3 20%
2 15%
1 0%
0.5 -15%
0.4 -20%
0.3 -25%
0.2 -30%
0.1 -45%
  • Values <1 decrease the probability of disease
  • Values >1 increase the probability of disease

Comments[1]

An easy way to recall at the bedside by simply remembering 3 specific LRs 2, 5, and 10—and the first 3 multiples of 15 (i.e., 15, 30, and 45). An LR of 2 increases probability 15%, one of 5 increases it 30%, and one of 10 increases it 45%. For those LRs between 0 and 1, the clinician simply inverts 2, 5, and 10 (i.e., 1/2 = 0.5, 1/5 = 0.2, 1/10 = 0.1). Just as the LR of 2.0 increases probability 15%, its inverse, 0.5, decreases probability 15%. Similarly, an LR of 0.2 (the inverse of 5) decreases probability 30%, and a LR of 0.1 (the inverse of 10) decreases it 45%. These benchmark LRs can be used to approximate the remainder of Table 1.

Although this method is inaccurate for pretest probabilities less than 10% or greater than 90%, this is not a disadvantage, because these polar extremes of probability indicate diagnostic certainty for most clinical problems, making it unnecessary to order further tests (and apply additional LRs).

References

  1. J Gen Intern Med. 2002 August; 17(8): 647–650.