+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Compare 2 tests - Bland Altman vs. area under curve

  1. #1
    Points: 1,455, Level: 21
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 45

    Posts
    5
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Compare 2 tests - Bland Altman vs. area under curve




    Hello,

    I want to compare the performance of 2 binary classification tests (positive vs. negative diagnosis) from the same sample (n=430). I have read about the Bland-Altman method and also about comparing the area under the ROC curves. Although the two methods of comparison are completely different I am not sure which one to use.

    Many thanks

  2. #2
    Omega Contributor
    Points: 38,334, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    hlsmith's Avatar
    Location
    Not Ames, IA
    Posts
    6,998
    Thanks
    398
    Thanked 1,186 Times in 1,147 Posts

    Re: Compare 2 tests - Bland Altman vs. area under curve

    Can you tell us about the tests and data in more detail, along with your goals. I am assuming you have another variable that is the gold standard?
    Stop cowardice, ban guns!

  3. #3
    Points: 1,455, Level: 21
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 45

    Posts
    5
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Compare 2 tests - Bland Altman vs. area under curve

    Sorry for insufficient information. The test is used to differentiate tachycardia A (positive) from tachycardia B (negative) using a time interval (ms) obtained from a novel pacing maneuver during electrophysiologic study. I have found an optimar cutoff of >80ms to differentiate tachycardia A from tachycardia B (ROC =0.97). Now there are many other pacing maneuvers that tries to distinguish tachycardia A from tachycardia B on the basis of time intervals (ms) and I want to compare their performance i.e. see if they work as well, better or worse than my novel pacing maneuver. However, there is no accepted gold standard method. In my study I have tested 2 other pacing maneuvers. Really, it is not so important for me to show that my method is better since its strength lies in its practical simplicity compared to the other methods, but I guess I need to do some kind of comparison.

  4. #4
    Omega Contributor
    Points: 38,334, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    hlsmith's Avatar
    Location
    Not Ames, IA
    Posts
    6,998
    Thanks
    398
    Thanked 1,186 Times in 1,147 Posts

    Re: Compare 2 tests - Bland Altman vs. area under curve

    How did you find an optimal cutoff if you don't have a gold standard?
    Stop cowardice, ban guns!

  5. #5
    Points: 1,455, Level: 21
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 45

    Posts
    5
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Compare 2 tests - Bland Altman vs. area under curve

    I took the cutoff that resulted in the highest sum of sensitivity+specificity... maybe that's incorrect? I should also add that to reach a definite diagnosis of tachycardia A (positive) or tachycardia B (negative) one usually needs to perform several pacing maneuvers and integrate all that information along with the response to therapy.

  6. #6
    Omega Contributor
    Points: 38,334, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    hlsmith's Avatar
    Location
    Not Ames, IA
    Posts
    6,998
    Thanks
    398
    Thanked 1,186 Times in 1,147 Posts

    Re: Compare 2 tests - Bland Altman vs. area under curve

    So the test was related to the evaluation of the test? To get SEN of SPEC you need a gold standard or a iffy proxy.
    Stop cowardice, ban guns!

  7. #7
    Points: 1,455, Level: 21
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 45

    Posts
    5
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Compare 2 tests - Bland Altman vs. area under curve


    The test is not related to the evaluation of the test as far as I am concerned. The definite diagnosis (gold standard) of tachycardia A or tachycardia B is a compound of several observations: clinical observations, ECGs, different measuremente during electrophysiologic study (not the measuremente I'm looking at), response to treatment etc. There is currently no single measuremente during electrophysiologic study that has 100% sensitivity/specificity.

+ Reply to Thread

           




Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts






Advertise on Talk Stats