Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Dental Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Janket, S.-J.
Right arrow Articles by Zhao, S. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Janket, S.-J.
Right arrow Articles by Zhao, S. D.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Questionable Performance of a Questionnaire

Sok-Ja Janket, DDS, DMD, MPH1, Prashanti Bollu, BDS, MS, DMD2 and Sihai Dave Zhao, AB, AS3

1 Boston University School of Dental Medicine, Department of General Dentistry. (Dr. Janket is supported by a grant from The American Heart Association, # 0635351N.)
2 Boston University School of Dental Medicine.
3 Harvard School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics

To the Editor:

According to a recent study, self-reported periodontitis was justified as a proxy for the clinical assessment of periodontitis (Pitiphat et al., 2008). The authors reported sensitivity and specificity of 18.4% and 98.7%, respectively, when validated against dental radiographs. Further, they declared the questionnaire to be valid because the sum of predictive values was larger than 120, citing a study published in the JDR (Blicher et al., 2005). We disagree with this affirmation for several reasons.

Sensitivity and specificity are two different properties of a diagnostic test that should be assessed independently but simultaneously. Sensitivity/specificity and predictive values (positive/negative) being complementary, one property can vary, causing opposite changes in the other. Therefore, summing these properties would be inappropriate. Moreover, since predictive values measure usefulness of the test, not accuracy, and since accuracy supersedes usefulness, predictive values should be considered only after accuracy has been established (Zweig and Campbell, 1993). We present evidence that, in the presence of extreme levels of sensitivity/specificity, the use of predictive values (positive/negative) is irrelevant.

Let us consider a hypothetical cohort of 1000 persons (summarized in the TableGo below) at an assumed periodontitis prevalence of 20% with the same sensitivity/specificity as cited by the authors (Pitiphat et al., 2008):


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
 
Although the questionnaire failed to identify over 80% of periodontitis cases, the ‘predictive value positive’ is 79% (37/47) and ‘negative’ is 83% (790/953). The performance of a questionnaire that failed to identify over 80% of the disease it represents is unacceptable, and using predictive values to validate its accuracy is misleading.

REFERENCES

  • Blicher B, Joshipura K, Eke P (2005). Validation of self-reported periodontal disease: a systematic review. J Dent Res 84:881–890.
  • Pitiphat W, Joshipura KJ, Gillman MW, Williams PL, Douglass CW, Rich-Edwards JW (2008). Maternal periodontitis and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 36:3–11.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Zweig MH, Campbell G (1993). Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 39:561–577; erratum in Clin Chem 39:1589, 1993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 87, No. 10, e1 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910808701015


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Janket, S.-J.
Right arrow Articles by Zhao, S. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Janket, S.-J.
Right arrow Articles by Zhao, S. D.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?