Microbiology Nuts & Bolts
  • Home
  • Basic Concepts
    • What is infection?
    • Normal flora
    • Diagnosing infection
  • Microbiology
    • Basic bacterial identification
    • Interpreting bacteriology results
    • Interpreting serology results
  • Infection Control
    • What is infection control?
    • Universal precautions
    • MRSA
    • Clostridium difficile
  • Clinical Scenarios
    • Respiratory infections
    • Urinary infections
    • GI infections >
      • D&V
      • CDAD
    • CNS infections
    • Skin & bone infections
    • Sepsis
  • Antibiotics
    • Antimicrobial Stewardship
    • How antibiotics work
    • How to choose an antibiotic?
    • Reviewing antibiotics
    • Antibiotic resistance
    • Testing antibiotic resistance
    • Penicillin allergy
    • Theraputic Drug Monitoring
  • Guidelines
  • Lectures & Lecture Notes
    • Medical Students
    • Curriculum for the Foundation Program
    • Foundation Year 1
    • Foundation Year 2
    • Other Lectures
  • The Bug Blog
  • Buy the book...
  • NEW Edition Updates
  • Peer Reviews
  • Our Facebook page
  • Want to know more?
  • Contact

What do Huskies have to do with statistical interpretation of results?

26/9/2019

 
There are lots of sayings in medicine, often recited by grumpy old doctors like me, to remind more junior staff how medicine “works”, or once worked!! Sayings like “if you hear hooves, think horses”, “common things are common” or “as rare as hen’s teeth”. All of these mean that a patient’s symptoms are usually explained by a common disease rather than a rare one and that treatment and investigations should be targeted at the common diagnoses rather than something more obscure.

Note: those doing exams are often the worst offenders as they are cramming obscure knowledge in order to cover “everything possible” that an exam might test them on, even if it is as rare as hens teeth!
​

But why do we say this? What is wrong with sending every test you can possibly think of for every possible disease, however rare, that might explain the patient’s symptoms? How do Doctors choose what tests to perform and have you ever considered how reliable the results that come back are!? You might be shocked to know that not all tests are completely accurate.

Okay, bear with me on this. The science is complicated and involves statistics… (stay with me everyone!!!) but it’s a fundamental part of medicine so I’m going to stick with it, come on, come with me… there is a “are you still confused” recap at the end, honest you will get it, Editor-Chief-in-Charge wrote it and she doesn’t do stats!
Fagon nomogram
​True: No microbiology test is 100% accurate. This may sound odd but I’m afraid if you are relying on the test being 100% accurate you are wrong, they never are but many people forget this.
 
When interpreting results you are not concerned about whether a positive result is a true positive or a negative is a true negative because you expect all positive results to only occur in patients who have the disease (true positive, TP) and all negative results to occur in those without disease (true negative, TN). Unfortunately life isn’t so simple; results are not always that clear cut or reliable! Some positive results occur in patients without disease (false positive, FP) and some negative results occur in patients with the disease (false negative, FN).
 
When performing laboratory tests it is important to know how likely the test is to be positive or negative to give an indication of the risk of a false positive or false negative result. The likelihood of a false result is based upon the probability of a true positive or true negative and is shown by the Positive or Negative Predictive Value (PPV or NPV).

  • PPV is the percentage of genuine positive tests for an infection e.g. PPV of 60% means that 60% of people with a positive test have the infection, however it also means 40% of patients with a positive test actually do not have the infection (false positives)
  • NPV is the percentage of genuine negative tests for an infection e.g. NPV of 97% means that 97% of people with a negative test do not have the infection, however it also means 3% of patients with a negative test actually do have the infection (false negatives)
 
PPV and NPV are dependent upon how common the infection is in the population being studied, so a test for a common infection will have a higher PPV and a lower NPV whereas a test for a rare infection will have a lower PPV and a higher NPV.
 
If an infection is extremely unlikely then any positive test is almost certainly a false positive and any negative test is a true negative. The PPV is virtually 0%; the NPV is probably 100%, so it isn’t necessary to do the test in the first place. For example, acute poliomyelitis (polio) can cause flaccid paralysis but if a patient has never left the UK the chance of them having polio is almost 0% because they won’t have come into contact with someone with polio. Therefore don’t test them for polio as the inherent inaccuracy of the test might just produce a positive result, but as polio has been eradicated in Europe the result is clearly wrong. Laboratory testing is not 100% accurate.
 
The next step in trusting a result is the likelihood ratios which represent how likely it is that a patient will have a particular infection if they have a positive or negative test. Likelihood ratios are calculated using a standard statistical equation (see below) from the sensitivity and specificity of the test in that specific patient population compared to a known/confirmed result. This “validates” the test against the known result.
 
For example, if you want to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of a urine dipstick in women you first need to test how effective a urine dipstick is in diagnosing a UTI in this population group. If you take 200 women (100 with confirmed UTI and 100 without a UTI) and test their urine with a urine dipstick, the results would look like this:
UTI
No UTI
+ve dipstick
77 (true positive)
30 (false positive)
107
-ve
​dipstick

23 (false negative)
70 (true negative)
93
100
100
200
sensitivity and specificity of a test
Click for larger image
These figures can now be used to calculate the two likelihood ratios; one is called the +ve likelihood ratio, the other is called the –ve likelihood ratio. The +ve likelihood ratio indicates the possibility that a positive test result is a genuine positive; the –ve likelihood ratio indicates the possibility that a negative result is actually incorrect.
likelihood ratios
Click for larger image
​REMEMBER: likelihood ratios represent how likely it is that a patient will have a particular infection if they have a positive or negative test.
 
The likelihood ratios are combined with the pre-test probability of the infection (the prevalence of a specific infection within the population, expressed as a percentage) to give post-test probabilities of the infection. This uses the Fagan nomogram.
Fagan nomogram
Starting with the pre-test probability value on the left axis (e.g. 20%), draw a straight line through the likelihood ratio value on the middle axis (e.g. 0.1), and end the line on the post-test probability value on the  right axis (e.g. 2%). The post-test probability is the probability of the patient having the infection when the test result is known e.g. only 2%, or 2 in 100 people.
 
The test, in this example, would be poor at diagnosing the disease if you were using the +ve likelihood ratio as only 2% of patients with a positive result would have the disease. However, it would be a good test for excluding a diagnosis if you were using the –ve likelihood ratio as only 2% of patients with a negative result would actually have the disease.
 
Both need to be plotted on a chart giving 2 post-test probability results; to work out how likely a positive test result indicates the patient does have an infection, and how likely a negative result indicates that the patient doesn’t have an infection. In the clinical examples below the red line uses the +ve likelihood ratio and the blue line uses the –ve likelihood ratio.
Fagan nomogram interpretation
Click for larger image
Fagan nomogram interpretation
Click for larger image
Fagan nomogram interpretation
Click for larger image
Are you still confused?
Let’s look at this in a non-medical analogy. The chances of me getting a Husky dog, with its strong prey drive to eat my cats, means there is a very low “pre-test probability” that I will have a Husky. Whereas a Field Spaniel, which is unlikely to attack my cats, means there is a higher “pre-test probability” that I will have a Field Spaniel. However the “+ve likelihood ratio” that my wife would allow me to have any dog is very low as she doesn’t really like dogs. With these factors combined the “post-test probability” that we will ever get a Husky is extremely low i.e. it will never happen, whereas having a Field Spaniel, whilst still unlikely, is more likely than having a Husky. Alternatively the “pre-test probability” and the “likelihood ratio” of us having more cats are both very high; therefore it is almost inevitable we will get a sixth cat!

So there you have it. You really shouldn’t do every test for every possible diagnosis for a patient. You will get false positive results which may lead you to the wrong conclusion and therefore the wrong treatment and while you are treating the patient incorrectly you will not be treating them for the condition they do have and that is clearly wrong.
 
So think about common diagnoses and test for them; if something is very unlikely then don’t even do the test. If the patient needs urgent treatment then treat for the most likely diagnosis whilst waiting for the results to come back. It’s good medicine and it’s good for patients…

Comments are closed.

    RSS Feed

    Blog Author:

    David Garner
    Consultant Microbiologist
    Surrey, UK

    Please DO NOT advertise products and conferences on our website or blog

    Categories

    All
    Antibiotic Resistance
    Antibiotics
    Basic Concepts
    Clinical Scenarios
    Guidelines
    Infection Control
    In The News
    Microbiology

    Archives

    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013

    Categories

    All
    Antibiotic Resistance
    Antibiotics
    Basic Concepts
    Clinical Scenarios
    Guidelines
    Infection Control
    In The News
    Microbiology

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.