AJR AJR-based Continuing Ed for Technologists
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lee, C.-H.
Right arrow Articles by Lin, Y.-M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lee, C.-H.
Right arrow Articles by Lin, Y.-M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.06.1495
AJR 2007; 188:W574
© American Roentgen Ray Society

Specificity Gains at the Expense of Sensitivity and Vice Versa

Cheng-Hung Lee, Chung-Yuh Tzeng and Yu-Min Lin

Taichung Veterans General Hospital Taichung, Taiwan



 
WEB—This is a Web exclusive article.

We read with interest the well-written article in the October 2006 issue of AJR titled "Use of the `Two-Slice-Touch' Rule for the MRI Diagnosis of Meniscal Tears" by Drs. De Smet and Tuite [1]. With knee arthroscopy results as the gold standard, the authors reported the positive predictive value increased from 91% to 94% (p = 0.37) for medial meniscus tears and from 83% to 96% (p = 0.02) for lateral meniscus tears when using the two-slice-touch rule compared with the standard criteria of diagnosing meniscus tears if one or more images are abnormal on MR findings. However, in Table 2 of their article, we are concerned that, although the authors calculate the accuracy parameters (sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value) for the two-slice-touch rule, they have deliberately excluded the number of possibly torn menisci from the denominator.

Theoretically, the number of possibly torn menisci should be added back in the denominator and treated as not torn when performing the calculation. We wondered why the authors excluded them from the denominator. This manipulation produced strange results in that the specificity increased without changes in the sensitivity. We calculated the accuracy parameters for the two-slice-touch rule again and found the following: For the medial meniscus, the correct sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value should be 92.5% (98/106), 91.2% (62/68), and 88.6% (62/70), respectively. The p values of differences for sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value should be 0.39, 0.29, and 0.49, respectively. For the lateral meniscus, the correct sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value should be 74.6% (53/71), 98.1% (101/103), and 84.9% (101/119), respectively. The p values of differences for sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value should be 0.69, 0.02, and 1.0, respectively.

We also appreciate the high positive predictive value for the diagnosis of meniscal tears using the two-slice-touch rule. However, there are no perfect tests in the world because the cut point shifts and the specificity increases as the sensitivity decreases or vice versa [2].


References
Top
References
 

  1. De Smet AA, Tuite MJ. Use of the "two-slice-touch" rule for the MRI diagnosis of meniscal tears. AJR2006; 187:911 –914[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Obuchowski NA. Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. Radiology 2003;229 : 3–8[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
A. De Smet and M. Tuite
Reply
Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2007; 188(6): W575 - W575.
[Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lee, C.-H.
Right arrow Articles by Lin, Y.-M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lee, C.-H.
Right arrow Articles by Lin, Y.-M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS