Content deleted Content added
→Subjectivity discussion is confusing and irrelevant: new section |
|||
Line 52:
I deleted the disadvantage of LR in the table because it is possible to do a calculation of likelihood ratios for tests with continuous values or more than two outcomes which is similar to the calculation for dichotomous outcomes; a separate likelihood ratio is simply calculated for every level of test result and is called interval or stratum specific likelihood ratios.<ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1067/mem.2003.274 | author = Brown MD, Reeves MJ. | year = 2003 | title = Evidence-based emergency medicine/skills for evidence-based emergency care. Interval likelihood ratios: another advantage for the evidence-based diagnostician | url = | journal =Ann Emerg Med | volume = 42 | issue = 2| pages = 292-297 | pmid = 12883521 }}</ref> [[User:Gcastellanos|Gcastellanos]] ([[User talk:Gcastellanos|talk]]) 10:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:I didn't know that was possible. Thanks for pointing this out {{=)}} I mentioned it in the article too. [[User:Mikael Häggström|Mikael Häggström]] ([[User talk:Mikael Häggström|talk]]) 08:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
== Subjectivity discussion is confusing and irrelevant ==
The use of the term "subjective" ignores that pre-test probability is derived from studies that are actually pretty straight forward. For example, HIV testing, you have some defined indication for testing and you simply count how many positive results you get, and how many negative. What is subjective about that? The editor using "subjective" misinterprets the subject matter of pretest probability away from the formal term to what "pre-test probability" would mean in colloquial language - what is the probability that my patient has HIV? Or is that all in my mind? [[Special:Contributions/205.203.58.1|205.203.58.1]] ([[User talk:205.203.58.1|talk]]) 20:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
| |||