1 / 35

360 likes | 821 Views

Clinical Epidemiology: Thyroid disease and test results. Wiley D. Jenkins, PhD, MPH Research Assistant Professor Southern Illinois University School of Medicine Department of Family and Community Medicine. Who I am.

Download Presentation
## Clinical Epidemiology: Thyroid disease and test results

**An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation**
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.
Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only.
Download presentation by click this link.
While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

**Clinical Epidemiology:Thyroid disease and test results**Wiley D. Jenkins, PhD, MPH Research Assistant Professor Southern Illinois University School of Medicine Department of Family and Community Medicine**Who I am**• My name is Wiley D. Jenkins and I am currently Research Assistant Professor at the SIU-SOM Department of Family and Community Medicine. Prior to this I spent 13 years in the state health department laboratory. • I received my MPH-Epidemiology from Tulane University in 2002. This was followed by my PhD in Health policy from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 2007. • Much of my research and work experience has concerned laboratory testing, STDs and the quality of laboratory data.**Learning objectives**• To understand the concepts of test sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. • To understand how these factors effect the utility of individual tests when diagnosing a condition. • To understand how these factors are manipulated by targeting screening tests to specific populations.**Performance objectives**• To be able to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for a given test. • To be able to determine if a test’s result is useful given its calculated values. • To be able to show how screening guidelines should be adjusted to increase positive and negative predictive values to maximize result usefulness.**There is always uncertainty**• Our common language incorporates uncertainty. • “Usually” implies error bars • Physics tells us that in an infinite universe, anything is possible. Some things are just more or less likely. • Heisenberg uncertainty principle: • statement that locating a particle in a small region of space makes the momentum of the particle uncertain; and conversely, that measuring the momentum of a particle precisely makes the position uncertain • As a matter of practicality, some things are essentially “100%” or “always” something. HOWEVER, its important to know when this is not the case, and that is not always obvious.**Quick review of terms**• Sensitivity – the ability of a test to correctly identify those who have a condition • Specificity – the ability of a test to correctly identify those who do not have a condition • Positive predictive value – the number of individuals who have a condition from all those who test positive • Negative predictive value - the number of individuals who do not have a condition from all those who test negative**The 2 x 2 table**• You’ll use this a lot later in life…**Sensitivity**• 90% sensitivity implies that of all those who have the disease, 10% will not be identified by the test. If prevalence is 20% of the population…**Specificity**• 75% specificity implies that of all those who do not have the disease, 25% will not be identified by the test. If prevalence is 20% of the population…**Positive/negative predictive value**• We complete the remaining marginals and find: • PPV for our example test is 180/380 = 47% • NPV is 600/620 = 97%. • What do we draw from this about the usefulness of the test?**Time for a clinical example**• 27-year-old woman • 10 lb weight loss in past two months, not trying • Some difficulty sleeping • Never had anything like this before • No signs/symptoms of depression • Meds: Oral contraceptive pills • 1-cm, firm, smooth nodule in right lobe of thyroid • BMI = 20 • Skin slightly dry • Remainder of physical examination normal • What do you think? • What should we do?**What next?**• Order more tests? • Schedule for surgery? • Prescribe medication, therapy, hamburgers…? • 1st, let’s see what the tests are really telling us.**Thyroid stimulating hormone**• Our patient has a (low) normal TSH • Sensitivity = 92% • Specificity = 94% • Are these good values? • Assume prevalence for thyroid disease of 4% in large populations • Calculate PPV and NPV for TSH • Do we care more about the PPV or NPV for this scenario?**TSH 2 x 2 table**• Complete the table and calculate the PPV and NPV assuming: sens = 92%, spec = 94% and prevalence = 4%**TSH 2 x 2 table - completed**• We find: • PPV = 37/95 = 31% • NPV = 902/905 = 100% • Which do we care about and what conclusions do we draw?**Free T4**• Our patient has an elevated Free T4 • Sensitivity = 82% • Specificity = 94% • Assume prevalence for thyroid disease of 4% in large populations • Calculate PPV and NPV for Free T4 • Do we care more about the PPV or NPV for this scenario?**Free T4 table**• Complete the table and calculate the PPV and NPV assuming: sens = 82%, spec = 94% and prevalence = 4%**Free T4 table - completed**• We find: • PPV = 33/91 = 36% • NPV = 902/909 = 99% • Which do we care about and what conclusions do we draw?**So…**• We have: • A symptomatic woman on OCPs with a thyroid nodule • A normal TSH • An elevated Total T4 • An elevated Free T4 • What next? • Scintigraphy? • Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy? • Excisional Biopsy?**Fine needle aspiration biopsy**• Indeterminate result • 15-20% false positive rate (assume 20% for calculations to follow) • 3% false negative rate • If we assume a 4% prevalence of thyroid cancer, calculate the sensitivity and specificity of the biopsy. • Calculate the positive and negative predictive value.**The FNAB 2 x 2 table**• What do we know? • Prevalence – 4% • False positive rate – 20% • False negative rate – 3%**The FNAB 2 x 2 table**• False positives = FP rate x all negatives = 0.20 x 960 = 192 • False negatives = FN rate x all positives = .03 x 40 = 1**The FNAB 2 x 2 table - completed**• We find: • PPV = 39/231 = 17% • NPV = 768/769 = 100% • Which do we care about and what conclusions do we draw?**Clinical course**• The patient was referred to a surgeon for excisional biopsy. • Nodule was removed, was a benign colloid goiter, no malignancy and no evidence of Hashimoto’s or other disease.**How do laboratory tests contribute to medical errors?**• Are not always right • May result in unnecessary further testing • May result in unnecessary surgery • With attendant complications • If we assume that tests are correct 95% of the time, what is the likelihood that, in a battery of 20 tests, one will be a false result? • So, for every Chem 20 you order (or other battery of 20 tests), 1 will be either a FALSE POSITIVE or a FALSE NEGATIVE. • Need to know how to work with sensitivity and specificity in order to know what to believe.**Time for a population example**• Why, because we like you! (M – I – C…) • Seriously though, population-level studies are translated into clinical guidelines. • In 2006, the number of reported cases of Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) in the US exceeded 1,000,000 for the 1st time. • The great majority of cases (~70% in women) are entirely asymptomatic. • Upwards of 40% of untreated Ct progress to PID; followed by chronic pelvic pain, ectopic pregnancy and infertility. • How do we address this?**Chlamydia trachomatis screening**• Diagnostic companies have spent considerable money developing rapid and accurate tests for the detection of Ct. • Current tests offer • ~95% sensitivity • ~98% specificity • So, do we just test everyone……? Lets’ see. (~150,000,000 women) x (~$10/test) = need for other alternative. • Who has Ct? • 0.35% all Americans • 0.52% women • 0.17% men • 1.76% Black women • 0.24% White women • 2.9% women aged 15-19 • 2.8% women aged 20-24**The Ct 2 x 2 table - completed**• For the general population (0.35%) we find: • PPV = 33/233 = 14% • NPV = 9765/9767 = 100%**The Ct 2 x 2 table - completed**• For all women (0.52%) we find: • PPV = 49/248 = 20% • NPV = 9749/9752 = 100%**The Ct 2 x 2 table - completed**• For all women aged 16-24 (2.9%) we find : • PPV = 276/470 = 59% • NPV = 9516/9530 = 100%**Utility of targeted testing**• By purposefully targeting our testing to at-risk populations, we increase the PPV of the test and better allocate resources. • General population • Prevalence = 0.35% PPV = 14% • All women • Prevalence = 0.52% PPV = 20% • Women aged 16-24 • Prevalence = 2.9% PPV = 59% • Females admitted into juvenile detention centers?? • Prevalence = 12-20% PPV = >90%! • Other risk factors important. • This works for clinical guidelines for screening, such as mammography, prostate exams, cholesterol…**Take away items**• Not a good practice to order tests “just because we can” or for “fishing expeditions.” • Costs can quickly become quite significant (e.g. compare HC expenditure for US versus other industrialized countries and resultant health outcomes). • Utility of the results is directly impacted by the population/person to which they are given. • Multiple tests increase the likelihood of a correct diagnosis. • E.g. Ct in 16-24, PPV = 59% • Additional test on just these positives (e.g. 59% prevalence) with same sens/spec results in PPV of 99%! • In the absence (always) of the “ultimate test”, use multiple results to arrive at the best conclusion.**Questions or comments??**Contact info: Wiley D. Jenkins, PhD, MPH wjenkins@siumed.edu 217-545-8717

More Related