To the Editor: White emphasised problems that can arise if medical decisions are overly reliant on the results of laboratory tests.1 He relates the case of a patient who, because of a peculiarity of her immunology, consistently produced a false-positive test result. In probabilistic language, the issue is are there risks of both random errors and patient-specific errors? It is important to distinguish between them. Suppose a test has a false-positive rate of 10%. If this is truly random error, the probability of two false-positive results in the same person is 1%, and the probability of three false-positive results is tiny. But if it is due to there being 10% of healthy people for whom the test is invalid and who consistently give a positive result, the probability of two false-positive results in the same person is 10%, and the probability of three false-positive results is 10%!
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. White GH. Trusting numbers: uncertainty and the pathology laboratory. Med J Aust 2002; 177: 153-155. <eMJA full text>
- 2. Lee TH. Interpretation of data for clinical decisions. In: Cecil textbook of medicine. 21st ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 2000; 79-84.
- 3. Goldman L. Quantitative aspects of clinical reasoning. In: Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. 14th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998; 9-14.
- 4. Mitrushina MN, Boone KB, D'Elia LF. Handbook of normative data for neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999; 16.
- 5. Young DS, Bermes EW. Specimen collection and processing: sources of biological variation. In: Tietz textbook of clinical chemistry. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1999; 42-72.