RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 From Pre-test and Post-test Probabilities to Medical Decision Making
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.02.14.24302820
DO 10.1101/2024.02.14.24302820
A1 Nixon, Michelle Pistner
A1 Momotaz, Farhani
A1 Smith, Claire
A1 Smith, Jeffrey S.
A1 Sendak, Mark
A1 Polage, Christopher
A1 Silverman, Justin D.
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/17/2024.02.14.24302820.abstract
AB Background A central goal of modern evidence-based medicine is the development of simple and easy to use tools that help clinicians integrate quantitative information into medical decision-making. The Bayesian Pre-test/Post-test Probability (BPP) framework is arguably the most well known of such tools and provides a formal approach to quantify diagnostic uncertainty given the result of a medical test or the presence of a clinical sign. Yet, clinical decision-making goes beyond quantifying diagnostic uncertainty and requires that that uncertainty be balanced against the various costs and benefits associated with each possible decision. Despite increasing attention in recent years, simple and flexible approaches to quantitative clinical decision-making have remained elusive.Methods We extend the BPP framework using concepts of Bayesian Decision Theory. By integrating cost, we can expand the BPP framework to allow for clinical decision-making.Results We develop a simple quantitative framework for binary clinical decisions (e.g., action/inaction, treat/no-treat, test/no-test). Let p be the pre-test or post-test probability that a patient has disease. We show that r* = (1 − p)/p represents a critical value called a decision boundary. In terms of the relative cost of under- to over-acting, r* represents the critical value at which action and inaction are equally optimal. We demonstrate how this decision boundary can be used at the bedside through case studies and as a research tool through a reanalysis of a recent study which found widespread misestimation of pre-test and post-test probabilities among clinicians.Conclusions Our approach is so simple that it should be thought of as a core, yet previously overlooked, part of the BPP framework. Unlike prior approaches to quantitative clinical decision-making, our approach requires little more than a hand-held calculator, is applicable in almost any setting where the BPP framework can be used, and excels in situations where the costs and benefits associated with a particular decision are patient-specific and difficult to quantify.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementJDS and MPN were supported by NIH 1 R01GM 148972-01.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI 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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesNo data sets were generated in the present work.