Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 59, Issue 11 , Pages 1155-1161, November 2006

Recurrent events counted in evaluations of predictive accuracy

  • Terry P. Haines

      Affiliations

    • The University of Melbourne, Peter James Centre, The University of Queensland and Princess Alexandra Hospital, c/o Physiotherapy Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland 4102, Australia
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +61-7-3240-6713.
  • ,
  • Keith D. Hill

      Affiliations

    • The National Ageing Research Institute and Melbourne Extended Care and Rehabilitation Service, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
  • ,
  • Kim L. Bennell

      Affiliations

    • The University of Melbourne School of Physiotherapy and the Centre for Health, Exercise and Sports Medicine, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
  • ,
  • Richard H. Osborne

      Affiliations

    • Centre for Rheumatic Disease, The Royal Melbourne Hospital and The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia

Accepted 5 December 2005. published online 25 August 2006.

Abstract 

Objectives

To describe an alternate approach for the calculation of sensitivity and specificity when analyzing the accuracy of screening tools, which can be used when standard calculations may be inappropriate. SensitivityER (ER denoting event rate) is the number of events correctly predicted, divided by the total number of events. SpecificityER is the amount of time that study participants are predicted to be event negative, divided by the total amount of participant observed time. Variance estimates for these statistics are constructed by bootstrap resampling, taking into account event dependence.

Methods

Standard and alternate approaches for calculating sensitivity and specificity were applied to hospital falls risk screening tool data. In this application, the outcome of interest was a recurrent event, there were multiple applications of the screening tool, delays in screening tool completion, and patients' follow-up durations were unequal.

Results

Application of sensitivityER and specificityER to this data not only provided a clearer description of the screening tool's overall accuracy, but also allowed examination of accuracy over time, accuracy in predicting specific event numbers, and evaluation of the added value that screening tool reapplications may have.

Conclusion

SensitivityER and specificityER provide a valuable approach to screening tool evaluation in the clinical setting.

Keywords: Sensitivity and specificity, Epidemiologic methods, Diagnostic accuracy, Accidental falls, Hospitals

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0895-4356(06)00162-4

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.12.017

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 59, Issue 11 , Pages 1155-1161, November 2006