Skip to content
Research Article Open access CC BY 4.0

Checking Consistency among the Four Basic Indicators of Diagnostic Testing in Saudi Medical Journals

Hamzah Abdul Majid Serag, Ali Muhammad Ali Rushdi

Asian Journal of Medical Principles and Clinical Practice · pp. 14–27 · Published 11 Jan 2021

Abstract

We provide a novel method for validating any purported set of the four most prominent indicators of diagnostic testing (Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value, and Negative Predictive Value), by observing that these indicators constitute three rather than four independent quantities. This observation has virtually been unheard of in the open medical literature. We defined two functions, which serve as consistency criteria, since each of them checks consistency for any set of four numerical values claimed to be the four basic diagnostic indicators. Most of the data we came across in various Saudi medical journals met our criteria for consistency, but in a few cases, there were obvious unexplained blunders. We relate our present findings to the more general issue of detection and ramifications of unwelcome flawed data.

Diagnostic testing sensitivity specificity positive predictive value negative predictive value consistency criterion flawed data.

Cited by 0

No indexed citations yet.

Article metrics

Real usage data collected on this platform.

0

Page views

0

PDF downloads

0

Outbound clicks

0

Citations

Views by country

Approximate, from request IP at view time — not citizenship or institution. Countries with fewer than 5 views are grouped as "Other".

No views recorded yet.

Traffic sources

Referring site, by host.

No traffic recorded yet.

Views and downloads exclude known bots/crawlers. Citations combines this platform's own DOI-resolved index with each external source's own reported total — see Cited by above for individually listed citing works. Last refreshed 0 seconds ago.