In this issue of the Archives, Chow and colleagues describe a multicenter “field evaluation” of computed tomographic coronary angiography (CTCA) in 169 patients undergoing conventional CA among 594 candidates with suspected coronary artery disease and report that its sensitivity, specificity, and predictive accuracy varied widely from center to center.
There are numerous reasons for this variability. For example, test likelihoods are well known to vary with the severity of disease (the greater the severity, the higher the sensitivity and the lower the specificity) and with the threshold for categorical interpretation (the greater the threshold, the lower the sensitivity and the higher the specificity). Accordingly, if we wish to interpret the particular response in a particular patient, we need to know the sensitivity and specificity of that particular response rather than of some arbitrary spectrum of responses. Also, conventional diagnostic assessment is often highly subjective, even for the verification procedure itself. With respect to CA as a diagnostic standard, for example, a given patient can be considered severely diseased by one observer and entirely normal by another.1
Register and get free email Table of Contents alerts, saved searches, PowerPoint downloads, CME quizzes, and more
Subscribe for full-text access to content from 1998 forward and a host of useful features
Activate your current subscription (AMA members and current subscribers)
Purchase Online Access to this article for 24 hours
Potential variability in the performance of computed tomographic coronary angiography. A, Relationship between sensitivity and specificity (test likelihood) vs the magnitude of verification bias (the unobserved prevalence of positive responders among the entire 594 candidate population in OMCAS). The sensitivity and specificity values (adjusted for verification bias) are calculated from the raw “patient-based ≥50% stenosis” data in Table 3 of the OMCAS paper (1) using a previously published computer algorithm based on Bayes' theorem3:
Adjusted sensitivity = PPA × p(R)/[PPA × p(R) + NPA × (1 − p(R)],
Adjusted specificity = 1 − (1 − PPA) × p(R)/[(1 − PPA) × p(R) + (1 − NPA) × (1 − p(R)],
where p(R) is the overall prevalence of positive test responders (total positive test results/total patients tested), PPA is the positive predictive accuracy (true-positive test results/total positive test results, and NPA is the negative predictive accuracy (false-negative test results/total negative test results). Sensitivity is directly related and specificity is inversely related to the magnitude of verification bias.4 B, The upper and lower bounds for appropriate test use (based on sensitivity, specificity, and prior probability of disease) as a function of the magnitude of verification bias (the unobserved prevalence of positive responders among the entire 594 candidate population in OMCAS). The lower bound is the point below which false-positive responses exceed true-positive responses, and the upper bound is the point above which false-negative responses exceed true-negative responses. Only within the intermediate range defined by these bounds are all test responses more likely to be true than false.
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. It will be reviewed by JAMA Internal Medicine editors. You will be notified when your comment has been published. Comments should not exceed 500 words of text and 10 references.
Do not submit personal medical questions or information that could identify a specific patient, questions about a particular case, or general inquiries to an author. Only content that has not been published, posted, or submitted elsewhere should be submitted. By submitting this Comment, you and any coauthors transfer copyright to the journal if your Comment is posted.
* = Required Field
Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest*
Indicate all relevant conflicts of interest of each author below, including all relevant financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including, but not limited to, employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speakers’ bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued. If all authors have none, check "No potential conflicts or relevant financial interests" in the box below. Please also indicate any funding received in support of this work. The information will be posted with your response.
Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.
Download citation file:
Web of Science® Times Cited: 4
Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.
More Listings atJAMACareerCenter.com >
and access these and other features:
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a link to reset your password.
Enter your username and email address. We'll send instructions on how to reset your password to the email address we have on record.
Athens and Shibboleth are access management services that provide single sign-on to protected resources. They replace the multiple user names and passwords necessary to access subscription-based content with a single user name and password that can be entered once per session. It operates independently of a user's location or IP address. If your institution uses Athens or Shibboleth authentication, please contact your site administrator to receive your user name and password.