Abstract
Recently the critical success index (CSI) has been increasingly discussed and advocated as a unitary outcome measure in various clinical situations where large numbers of true negatives may influence the interpretation of other more traditional outcome measures such as sensitivity and specificity, or when unified interpretation of positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity (Sens) is needed. The derivation of CSI from measures including PPV has prompted questions as to whether and how CSI values may vary with disease prevalence (P), just as PPV estimates are dependent on P, and hence whether CSI values are generalizable between studies with differing prevalences. As no detailed study of the relation of CSI to prevalence has been undertaken hitherto, the dataset of a previously published test accuracy study of a cognitive screening instrument was reinterrogated to address this question. Three different methods were used to examine the change in CSI across a range of prevalences, using both Bayes formula and equations directly relating CSI to Sens, PPV, P, and to test threshold (Q). These approaches showed that, as expected, CSI does vary with prevalence, but the dependence differs according to the method of calculation adopted. Bayesian rescaling both Sens and PPV generates a concave curve, suggesting that CSI will be maximal at a particular prevalence which may vary according to the particular dataset.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research received no external funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Subjects gave informed consent and the study was approved by the institute's committee on human research (Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery Approval: N 310).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Base data are available from the authors of the original study.19
