Skip to main content
Journal cover image

Intermediate, indeterminate, and uninterpretable diagnostic test results.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Simel, DL; Feussner, JR; DeLong, ER; Matchar, DB
Published in: Med Decis Making
1987

Diagnostic tests do not always yield positive or negative results; sometimes the results are intermediate, indeterminate, or uninterpretable. No consensus exists for the incorporation of such results into data assessment. Conventional Bayesian analysis leads investigators to either exclude patients with non-positive, non-negative results from their studies or categorize such results into inappropriate cells of the standard four-cell decision matrix. The authors propose a standardized method for reporting results in studies dealing with diagnostic test use and discuss how researchers should expand the four-cell matrix to six cells when non-positive, non-negative results occur. They suggest that the six-cell matrix with new operational definitions of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and test yield should be adopted routinely. In addition, they define the different types of non-positive, non-negative results and demonstrate how clinicians can use tree-structured decision analysis from the six-cell matrix. While their method does not solve all problems posed by non-positive, non-negative results, it does suggest a standard method for reporting these results and utilizing all the data in decision making.

Duke Scholars

Published In

Med Decis Making

DOI

ISSN

0272-989X

Publication Date

1987

Volume

7

Issue

2

Start / End Page

107 / 114

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Probability
  • Predictive Value of Tests
  • Models, Theoretical
  • Humans
  • Health Policy & Services
  • Decision Making
  • Clinical Laboratory Techniques
  • Bayes Theorem
  • 4206 Public health
  • 4203 Health services and systems
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Simel, D. L., Feussner, J. R., DeLong, E. R., & Matchar, D. B. (1987). Intermediate, indeterminate, and uninterpretable diagnostic test results. Med Decis Making, 7(2), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X8700700208
Simel, D. L., J. R. Feussner, E. R. DeLong, and D. B. Matchar. “Intermediate, indeterminate, and uninterpretable diagnostic test results.Med Decis Making 7, no. 2 (1987): 107–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X8700700208.
Simel DL, Feussner JR, DeLong ER, Matchar DB. Intermediate, indeterminate, and uninterpretable diagnostic test results. Med Decis Making. 1987;7(2):107–14.
Simel, D. L., et al. “Intermediate, indeterminate, and uninterpretable diagnostic test results.Med Decis Making, vol. 7, no. 2, 1987, pp. 107–14. Pubmed, doi:10.1177/0272989X8700700208.
Simel DL, Feussner JR, DeLong ER, Matchar DB. Intermediate, indeterminate, and uninterpretable diagnostic test results. Med Decis Making. 1987;7(2):107–114.
Journal cover image

Published In

Med Decis Making

DOI

ISSN

0272-989X

Publication Date

1987

Volume

7

Issue

2

Start / End Page

107 / 114

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Probability
  • Predictive Value of Tests
  • Models, Theoretical
  • Humans
  • Health Policy & Services
  • Decision Making
  • Clinical Laboratory Techniques
  • Bayes Theorem
  • 4206 Public health
  • 4203 Health services and systems