Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Die „likelihood ratio“

Beeinflussung der Therapieentscheidung durch einen diagnostischen Test

The likelihood ratio

Estimation of the impact of a diagnostic test on treatment decision

  • Übersichten
  • Published:
Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

„Likelihood ratios“ (LR) erlauben dem Kliniker einfach und schnell die Umrechnung der Vortest- zur Nachtestwahrscheinlichkeit einer bestimmten Erkrankung, basierend auf der erbrachten Information eines bestimmten Tests. Auf diese Weise kann der diagnostische Nutzen eines bestimmten Tests für eine bestimmte klinische Fragestellung eruiert werden. Entsprechend können LR auch dafür verwendet werden, die Leistungsfähigkeit zwischen verschiedenen diagnostischen Tests zu vergleichen. Urologen sollten sich mit dem Gebrauch der LR vertraut machen, um eine evidenzbasierte Anwendung diagnostischer Tests für ihre Patienten zu fördern. In diesem Review soll die Berechnung und Verwendung der LR verdeutlicht werden.

Abstract

Likelihood ratios (LRs) can be used to assess in an efficient manner the change of a pre-test probability to the post-test probability of a disease based on a given test result. For any clinical question or condition of interest, the diagnostic benefit can be calculated for each diagnostic test allowing to compare the performance of different diagnostic tests. Urologists should become familiar with the use of LR to promote a more evidence-based application of diagnostic test for different clinical scenarios. This review provides insights in the calculation and use of LR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  1. Babjuk M, Oosterlinck W, Sylvester R et al (2011) European Association of Urology (EAU). EAU guidelines on non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Eur Urol 59:997–1008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rink M, Kluth LA, Shariat SF et al (2012) Use of pubmed to improve evidence-based medicine in daily urological practice. Urologe A 51(1):81–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Vargas HA, Akin O, Schöder H et al (2012) Prospective evaluation of MRI, (11)C-acetate PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT for staging of bladder cancer. Eur J Radiol 81(12):4131–4137

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Meeks JJ, Bellmunt J, Bochner BH et al (2012) A systematic review of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Eur Urol 62(3):523–533

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Green DA, Durand M, Gumpeni N et al (2012) Role of magnetic resonance imaging in bladder cancer: current status and emerging techniques. BJU Int 110:1463–1470. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11129.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kibel AS, Dehdashti F, Katz MD et al (2009) Prospective study of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for staging of muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 27(26):4314–4320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Karakiewicz PI, Shariat SF, Palapattu GS et al (2006) Precystectomy nomogram for prediction of advanced bladder cancer stage. Eur Urol 50(6):1254–1260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Scales CD Jr, Dahm P, Sultan S et al (2008) Users‘ guide to the urological literature: how to use an article about a diagnostic test. J Urol 180:469–476

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL (1994) Users‘ guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 271:703–707

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fagan TJ (1975) Letter: nomogram for Bayes theorem. N Engl J Med 293:257

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt für sich und seine Koautoren an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Deutschland

    L.A. Kluth, M. Rink, F.K.H. Chun & M. Fisch

  2. Department of Urology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 525 East 68th Street, Starr 900, 10065, New York, NY, USA

    L.A. Kluth, M. Rink & S.F. Shariat MD

  3. Division of Medical Oncology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA

    S.F. Shariat MD

  4. Department of Urology, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA

    P. Dahm

Authors
  1. L.A. Kluth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Rink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F.K.H. Chun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Fisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S.F. Shariat MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P. Dahm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S.F. Shariat MD.

Additional information

Dr. Luis A. Kluth und Dr. Michael Rink waren zu gleichen Teilen an der Manuskripterstellung beteiligt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kluth, L., Rink, M., Chun, F. et al. Die „likelihood ratio“. Urologe 52, 982–985 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-013-3145-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-013-3145-1

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation