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 (%)== | ||
{| {{table}} | |||
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''LR''' | |||
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''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<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). | ||
==References== | |||
<references/> | |||
== | |||
[[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
- ↑ J Gen Intern Med. 2002 August; 17(8): 647–650.
