Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Number Needed (Reciprocal) Measures and Their Combinations as Likelihoods

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The 2x2 Matrix

  • 113 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter considers various “number needed” (reciprocal or multiplicative inverse) measures of test outcome which can be derived from the basic 2 × 2 contingency table, as well as certain likelihood measures which may be derived from the “number needed” measures. All of these measures, including some described for the first time here, have been developed to summarise test outcome in a manner which is hopefully more intuitive to clinicians and patients than the traditional measures of discrimination such as sensitivity and specificity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Andrade C. Likelihood of being helped or harmed as a measure of clinical outcomes in psychopharmacology. J Clin Psychiatry. 2017;78:e73–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Citrome L, Ketter TA. When does a difference make a difference? Interpretation of number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed. Int J Clin Pract. 2013;67:407–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ. 1995;310:452–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Habibzadeh F, Yadollahie M. Number needed to misdiagnose: a measure of diagnostic test effectiveness. Epidemiology. 2013;24:170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hsieh S, McGrory S, Leslie F, Dawson K, Ahmed S, Butler CR, et al. The Mini-Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination: a new assessment tool for dementia. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2015;39:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Sackett DL. Users’ guide to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? JAMA. 1994;271:703–7.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kraemer HC. Evaluating medical tests. Objective and quantitative guidelines. Newbery Park, California: Sage; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Larner AJ. Teleneurology by internet and telephone. A study of medical self-help. London: Springer; 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Larner AJ. Number needed to diagnose, predict, or misdiagnose: useful metrics for non-canonical signs of cognitive status? Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra. 2018;8:321–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Larner AJ. MACE for diagnosis of dementia and MCI: examining cut-offs and predictive values. Diagnostics (Basel). 2019;9:E51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Larner AJ. Applying Kraemer’s Q (positive sign rate): some implications for diagnostic test accuracy study results. Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra. 2019;9:389–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Larner AJ. New unitary metrics for dementia test accuracy studies. Prog Neurol Psychiatry. 2019;23(3):21–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Larner AJ. Evaluating cognitive screening instruments with the “likelihood to be diagnosed or misdiagnosed” measure. Int J Clin Pract. 2019;73: e13265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Larner AJ. Manual of screeners for dementia: pragmatic test accuracy studies. London: Springer; 2020.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Larner AJ. Defining “optimal” test cut-off using global test metrics: evidence from a cognitive screening instrument. Neurodegener Dis Manag. 2020;10:223–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Larner AJ. Mini-Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (MACE): a useful cognitive screening instrument in older people? Can Geriatr J. 2020;23:199–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Larner AJ. Mini-Cog versus Codex (cognitive disorders examination): is there a difference? Dement Neuropsychol. 2020;14:128–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Larner AJ. The “attended alone” and “attended with” signs in the assessment of cognitive impairment: a revalidation. Postgrad Med. 2020;132:595–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Larner AJ. Communicating risk: developing an “Efficiency Index” for dementia screening tests. Brain Sci. 2021;11:1473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Larner AJ. The 2 × 2 matrix. Contingency, confusion and the metrics of binary classification. London: Springer; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Larner AJ. Evaluating binary classifiers: extending the Efficiency Index. Neurodegener Dis Manag. 2022;12:185–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Larner AJ. Efficiency index for binary classifiers: concept, extension, and application. Mathematics. 2023;11:2435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Larner AJ. Cognitive screening in older people using Free-Cog and Mini-Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (MACE). Preprints.org. 2023;2023:2023040237. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202304.0237.v1

  24. Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:1728–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Linn S, Grunau PD. New patient-oriented summary measure of net total gain in certainty for dichotomous diagnostic tests. Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2006;3:11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. McGee S. Simplifying likelihood ratios. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17:647–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mitchell AJ. Index test. In: Kattan MW, editor. Encyclopedia of medical decision making. Los Angeles: Sage; 2009. p. 613–7.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rembold CM. Number needed to screen: development of a statistic for disease screening. BMJ. 1998;317:307–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rosenthal JA. Qualitative descriptors of strength of association and effect size. J Soc Serv Res. 1996;21:37–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wald NJ, Morris JK. Two under-recognized limitations of number needed to treat. Int J Epidemiol. 2020;49:359–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Williamson JC, Larner AJ. “Likelihood to be diagnosed or misdiagnosed”: application to meta-analytic data for cognitive screening instruments. Neurodegener Dis Manag. 2019;9:91–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zermansky A. Number needed to harm should be measured for treatments. BMJ. 1998;317:1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ziso B, Larner AJ. AD8: Likelihood to diagnose or misdiagnose. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019;90:A20. https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/90/12/A20.1

  34. Ziso B, Larner AJ. Codex (cognitive disorders examination) decision tree modified for the detection of dementia and MCI. Diagnostics (Basel). 2019;9:E58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cognitive Function Clinic, Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Liverpool, UK

    A. J. Larner

Authors
  1. A. J. Larner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. J. Larner .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Larner, A.J. (2024). Number Needed (Reciprocal) Measures and Their Combinations as Likelihoods. In: The 2x2 Matrix. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47194-0_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47194-0_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-47193-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-47194-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation