Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quantifying the value of markers in screening programmes

  • Commentary
  • Published:
European Journal of Epidemiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Existing methods used to rank the value of individual screening markers in screening programmes are inadequate. We have developed a simple Screening Marker Index: (Screening Marker Index = Positive Predictive Value × Sensitivity). The Screening Marker Index proved to be superior to existing indices in ranking screening markers according to their ability to identify the conditions sought.

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

Fig. 1

Abbreviations

COPD:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

NNS:

Number needed to screen

PPV:

Positive predictive value

SMI:

Screening marker index

YI:

Youden index

PLR:

Positive likelihood ratio

NLR:

Negative likelihood ratio

ROC:

Receiver operating characteristics

References

  1. Love RR, Camilli AE. The value of screening. Cancer. 1981;48:489–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Uses and abuses of screening tests. Lancet. 2002;359:881–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Andermann A, Blancquaert I, Beauchamp S, Dery V. Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86:317–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sasieni P, Castanon A, Cuzick J. Screening and adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Int J Cancer. 2009;125:525–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hofvind S, Geller B, Vacek PM, Thoresen S, Skaane P. Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Eur J Epidemiol. 2007;22:447–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Irwig L, Macaskill P, Houssami N. Evidence relevant to the investigation of breast symptoms: the triple test. Breast. 2002;11:215–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wilson JM, Jungner YG. Principles and practice of mass screening for disease. Public Haelth Papers 34. Geneva: World Health Association; 1968.

  8. Cuijpers P, van Straten A, Smits N, Smit F. Screening and early psychological intervention for depression in schools: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2006;15:300–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Storm-Versloot MN, Vermeulen H, Wiggers LC, Smets EM, de Haes HC, Peters RJ, et al. The number of smokers needed to screen and treat in a smoking cessation programme. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2009;16:669–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rembold CM. Number needed to screen: development of a statistic for disease screening. BMJ. 1998;317:307–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer. 1950;3:32–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Clinical Guideline 23 (amended), Depression: management of depression in primary and secondary care—NICE guidance. London 2007. Available at: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG23/Guidance/pdf/English.

  13. Sorensen C, Brandes A, Hendricks O, Thrane J, Friis-Hasche E, Haghfelt T, et al. Depression assessed over 1-year survival in patients with myocardial infarction. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2006;113:290–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stage KB, Middelboe T, Stage TB, Sorensen CH. Depression in COPD–management and quality of life considerations. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2006;1:315–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. The Danish National Board of Health. Referenceprogramme on the management of unipolar depression in adults (in Danish). Secretariat for Referenceprogrammes 2007. Available at: http://www.sst.dk/publ/Publ2007/PLAN/SfR/SST_Dep.rapport.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Unit for Psychiatric Research, Aalborg Psychiatric Hospital, Aarhus University Hospital, Mølleparkvej 10, 9000, Ålborg, Denmark

    Søren Dinesen Østergaard

  2. Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Århus, Denmark

    Peter Thisted Dinesen

  3. Centre for Psychiatric Research, Aarhus University Hospital, Risskov, Denmark

    Leslie Foldager

  4. Bioinformatics Research Centre (BiRC), Aarhus University, Åarhus, Denmark

    Leslie Foldager

Authors
  1. Søren Dinesen Østergaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Thisted Dinesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leslie Foldager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Søren Dinesen Østergaard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Østergaard, S.D., Dinesen, P.T. & Foldager, L. Quantifying the value of markers in screening programmes. Eur J Epidemiol 25, 151–154 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-010-9430-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-010-9430-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation