首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the Formosan Medical Association =: Taiwan yi zhi >Selecting a Cutoff Point for a Developmental Screening Test Based on Overall Diagnostic Indices and Total Expected Utilities of Professional Preferences
【24h】

Selecting a Cutoff Point for a Developmental Screening Test Based on Overall Diagnostic Indices and Total Expected Utilities of Professional Preferences

机译:基于整体诊断指标和专业偏好的总预期公用事业选择开发筛查测试的截止点

获取原文
           

摘要

A cutoff point in a test with sounded validity and professional preferences can help to make an accurate clinical decision. This study aimed to determine a cutoff point between two strategies for a developmental screening checklist (referred to as Taipei II). Cutoff point A was set as one or more item failed and cutoff point B was set as two or more items failed or one or more marked item failed. Methods: This study was based on the total expected utilities of professional preferences and overall diagnostic indices. A self-administered questionnaire was developed to collect the estimated utility from professionals involved in early childhood interventions (n = 81) regarding four screening outcomes (probabilities of true positive, false positive, true negative, or false negative) and costs. The total expected utilities were calculated from the probabilities of four screening outcomes and utility values. Results: The diagnostic odds ratio was higher for strategy B (695 and 209, respectively) than that of strategy A (184 and 150, respectively) when using the Taipei II on children under 3 years of age and age 3 and over. Strategy B also had a higher median total expected utilities score than strategy A (0.78 vs. 0.72 for children & 3 and 0.76 vs. 0.67 for children ≥ 3). Conclusion: If only one cutoff point can be chosen, the authors suggest that clinicians should choose cutoff point B when using the Taipei II for screening. However, two cutoff points of Taipei II, a combination of strategy A and B, can also be used clinically.
机译:具有探测有效性和专业偏好的测试中的截止点可以帮助进行准确的临床决策。本研究旨在确定发育筛查清单(称为台北II)的两种策略之间的截止点。将截止点A设置为一个或多个项目失败,截止点B被设置为两个或多个项目失败,或者一个或多个标记物品失败。方法:本研究基于专业偏好和整体诊断指标的预期实用程序。开发了一个自我管理的问卷,以收取来自参与早期儿童干预的专业人士(n = 81)关于四个筛查结果的估计效用(真实积极,假,真正的负面或假阴性的概率)和成本。总预期的公用事业公司是根据四种筛选结果和效用价值的概率计算的。结果:策略B(695和209分别)诊断差距比于策略A(分别)在3岁以下儿童和3岁及以上的儿童上的策略A(分别为184和150)。策略B还具有比策略A(0.78 vs.0.72为4.3〜0.76对0.76对0.76对0.76 vs.0.67)的预期预期公用事业商业总体评分的更高中值。结论:如果只能选择一个截止点,作者表明临床医生应该在使用台北II进行筛选时选择截止点B.然而,临床上也可以使用Taipei II的两个截止点,策略A和B的组合。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号