0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Invited Commentary | ONLINE FIRST

Gone Fishing!: On the “Real-World” Accuracy of Computed Tomographic Coronary Angiography:  Comment on the “Ontario Multidetector Computed Tomographic Coronary Angiography Study”

George A. Diamond, MD; Sanjay Kaul, MD
Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(11):1029-1031. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.75.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Extract

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

Figures in this Article

Sign in

Create a free personal account to sign up for alerts, share articles, and more.

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

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)],

and

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.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

References

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 4

Sign in

Create a free personal account to sign up for alerts, share articles, and more.

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
brightcove.createExperiences();