Anonymous asked in 社會與文化語言 · 1 decade ago



the higher clustering of negative predictive values compared

with positive predictive values would support this

tentative conclusion. It should be noted, however, that the

prevalence of proteinuria in the populations studied is

relatively high, reflecting the fact that the investigators

have studied those patients in whom there was a high

pre-test probability of proteinuria. The conclusion drawn

from this review, therefore, cannot necessarily be extrapolated

to clinical situations in which there is a significantly

lower prevalence of proteinuria.

Likelihood ratios provide the clearest data on the way

in which the test can be used reliably. A likelihood ratio

10 is considered to be indicative of convincing evidence

of the diagnostic performance of a test in rule-in mode,

whereas a likelihood ratio 0.1 is indicative of convincing

evidence of the diagnostic performance of a test in ruleout

mode (44, 48, 49). Ratios 5 or 0.2 are indicative of

strong evidence. The data in Figs. 5 and 6 indicate that

there is some evidence suggesting that the ratio of protein

to creatinine, in a random urine, will identify those

patients in whom an increase in 24-h protein excretion is

unlikely to be present. Furthermore, the data in Fig. 6

indicate that when all of the data from the studies of

pregnant women thought to be at risk of developing

preeclampsia are accumulated in a stepwise fashion, the

likelihood ratio does not change substantially and that

there thus is no need for additional data. It must be noted

that all of these studies were carried out at fixed thresholds

for the ratio of protein to creatinine in urine. It is

possible that by adjusting the threshold used for the ratio

to lower values, the sensitivity of the test for proteinuria

might be further increased, and the LR(), correspondingly,

reduced to even lower values. Such lower values

1 Answer

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    同樣, 更高使成群消極預計值比較正面預計值會支持這個試探性結論。它應該是著名, 然而, proteinuria 的流行在人口被學習是相對地高的, 反射事實調查員學習了有proteinuria 的一個高預告測驗可能性的那些患者。結論得出從這回顧無法, 因此, 必要被外推對有proteinuria 的顯著更低的流行的臨床情況。可能比率提供最清楚的資料在測試可能可靠地被使用的途中。可能比率10 認為是表示的一個測試的診斷表現的令人相信的證據規則在方式, 但是可能比率0.1 是表示的一個測試的診斷表現的令人相信的證據在ruleout 方式下(44, 48, 49) 。比率5 或0.2 是表示的有力的證據。資料在無花果。5 和6 表明, 有一些證據建議蛋白質比與肌氨酸酐, 在任意尿, 將辨認在24-h 蛋白質排泄的增量是不太可能是存在的那些患者。此外, 資料在圖6 表明當所有資料從孕婦想法的研究是在危險中開發preeclampsia 被積累按步時尚, 可能比率不極大地改變並且有因而是對另外的資料的沒有需要。它必須注意到, 所有這些研究被執行了在固定的門限為蛋白質比與肌氨酸酐在尿。它是可能的, 被調整門限被使用為比率對更加低值的, 測試的敏感性為proteinuria 也許進一步增加, 並且LR(), 相應地, 減少了到更加低值的。這樣更加低值的


    Source(s): 網路~
    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.