Introduction

In the previous chapters we focused on dichotomous test results, e.g., fecal occult blood is either present or absent. Test results can conveniently be dichotomized, and thinking in terms of dichotomous test results is generally helpful. Distinguishing patients with and without the target disease is useful for the purpose of subsequent decision making because most medical actions are dichotomous. In reality, however, most test results have more than two possible outcomes. Test results can be categorical, ordinal, or continuous. For example, categories of a diagnostic imaging test may be defined by key findings on the images. These categories may be ordered (intuitively) according to the observer’s confidence in the diagnosis, based on the findings. As an example, abnormalities seen on mammography are commonly reported as definitely malignant, probably malignant, possibly malignant, probably benign, or definitely benign. As we shall see later in this chapter, it makes sense to order the categories (explicitly) according to increasing likelihood ratio (LR). Some test results are inherently ordinal, e.g., the five categories of a Papanicolaou smear (test for cervical cancer) are ordinal. Results of biochemical tests are usually given on a continuous scale, which may be reduced to an ordinal scale by grouping the test results. Thus, a test result on a continuous scale can be considered a result on an ordinal scale with an infinite number of very narrow categories. Scores from prediction models are on an ordinal scale if there are a finite number of possible scores, and on a continuous scale if there are an infinite number of scores. When test results are categorical, ordinal, or continuous, we have to consider many test results Ri, where i can be any value from two (the case we have considered in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6, T+ and T−) up to any number of categories. Interpretation of a test result on an ordinal scale can be considered a generalization of the situation of dichotomous test results.

Introduction

Much of clinical medicine and health care involves uncertainties: some reducible, but some irreducible despite our best efforts and tests. Better decisions will be made if we are open and honest about these uncertainties, and develop skills in estimating, communicating, and working with such uncertainties. What types of uncertainty exist? Consider the following example.

Needlestick injury:

It has been a hard week. It is time to go home when you are called to yet another heroin overdose: a young woman has been found unconscious outside your clinic. After giving intravenous (IV) naloxone (which reverses the effects of heroin), you are accidentally jabbed by the needle. After her recovery, despite your reassurances, the young woman flees for fear of the police. As the mêlée settles, the dread of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection begins to develop. You talk to the senior doctor about what you should do. She is very sympathetic, and begins to tell you about the risks and management. The good news is that, even if the patient was HIV-positive, a needlestick injury rarely leads to HIV infection (about 3 per 1000). And if she was HIV-positive then a basic two-drug regime of antivirals such as zidovudine (AZT) plus lamivudine are likely to be able to prevent most infections (perhaps 80%).

Unfortunately, the HIV status of the young woman who had overdosed is unknown. Since she was not a patient of your clinic, you are uncertain about whether she is infected, but think that it is possible since she is an IV drug user. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines (1) suggest: ‘If the exposure source is unknown, use of post-exposure prophylaxis should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Consider the severity of exposure and the epidemiologic likelihood of HIV.’ What do you do?

Introduction

As discussed in Chapter 8, ‘good decision analyses depend on both the veracity of the decision model and the validity of the individual data elements.’ The validity of each individual data element relies on the comprehensiveness of the literature search for the best and most appropriate study or studies, criteria for selecting the source studies, the design of the study or studies, and methods for synthesizing the data from multiple sources. Nonetheless, Sir Michael David Rawlins avers that ‘Decision makers have to incorporate judgements, as part of their appraisal of the evidence, in reaching their conclusions. Such judgements relate to the extent to which each of the components of the evidence base is “fit for purpose.” Is it reliable?’(1) Because the integration of a multitude of these ‘best available’ data elements forms the basis for model results, some individuals refer to decision analyses as black boxes, so this last question applies particularly to the overall model predictions. Consequently, assessing model validity becomes paramount. However, prior to assessing model validity, model construction requires attention to parameter estimation and model calibration. This chapter focuses on parameter estimation, calibration, and validation in the context of Markov and, more generally, state-transition models (Chapter 10) in which recurrent events may occur over an extended period of time. The process of parameter estimation, calibration, and validation is iterative: it involves both adjustment of the data to fit the model and adjustment of the model to fit the data.

Parameter estimation

Survival analysis involves determining the probability that an event such as death or disease progression will occur over time. The events modeled in survival analysis are called ‘failure’ events, because once they occur, they cannot occur again. ‘Survival’ is the absence of the failure event. The failure event may be death, or it may be death combined with a non-fatal outcome such as developing cancer or having a heart attack, in which case the absence of the event is referred to as event-free survival. Commonly used methods for survival analysis include life-table analysis, Kaplan–Meier product limit estimates, and Cox proportional hazards models. A survival curve plots the probability of being alive over time (Figure 11.1).

Introduction

Some treatment decisions are straightforward. For example, what should be done for an elderly patient with a fractured hip? Inserting a metal pin has dramatically altered the management: instead of lying in bed for weeks or months waiting for the fracture to heal while blood clots and pneumonia threatened, the patient is now ambulatory within days. The risks of morbidity and mortality are both greatly reduced. However, many treatment decisions are complex. They involve uncertainties and trade-offs that need to be carefully weighed before choosing. Tragic outcomes may occur no matter which choice is made, and the best that can be done is to minimize the overall risks. Such decisions can be difficult and uncomfortable to make. For example, consider the following historical dilemma.

Benjamin Franklin and smallpox

Benjamin Franklin argued implicitly in favor of the application to individual patients of probabilities based on previous experience with similar groups of patients. Before Edward Jenner’s discovery in 1796 of cowpox vaccination for smallpox, it was known that immunity from smallpox could be achieved by a live smallpox inoculation, but the procedure entailed a risk of death. When a smallpox epidemic broke out in Boston in 1721, the physician Zabdiel Boylston consented, at the urging of the clergyman Cotton Mather, to inoculate several hundred citizens. Mather and Boylston reported their results (1):

Diagnostic information and probability revision

Physicians have at their disposal an enormous variety of diagnostic information to guide them in decision making. Diagnostic information comes from talking to the patient (symptoms, such as pain, nausea, and breathlessness), examining the patient (signs, such as abdominal tenderness, fever, and blood pressure), and from diagnostic tests (such as blood tests, X-rays, and electrocardiograms (ECGs)) and screening tests (such as Papanicolaou smears for cervical cancer or cholesterol measurements).

Physicians are not the only ones that have to interpret diagnostic information. Public policy makers in health care are equally concerned with understanding the performance of diagnostic tests. If, for example, a policy maker is considering a screening program for lung cancer, he/she will need to understand the performance of the diagnostic tests that can detect lung cancer in an early phase of the disease. In public policy making, other types of ‘diagnostic tests’ may also be relevant. For example, a survey with a questionnaire in a population sample can be considered analogous to a diagnostic test. And performing a trial to determine the efficacy of a treatment is in fact a ‘test’ with the goal of getting more information about that treatment.

Introduction

In the previous chapter we looked at how to interpret diagnostic information such as symptoms, signs, and diagnostic tests. Now we need to consider when such information is helpful in decision making. Even if they reduce uncertainty, tests are not always helpful. If used inappropriately to guide a decision, a test may mislead more than it leads. In general, performing a test to gain additional information is worthwhile only if two conditions hold: (1) at least one decision would change given some test result, and (2) the risk to the patient associated with the test is less than the expected benefit that would be gained from the subsequent change in decision. These conditions are most likely to be fulfilled when we are confronted with intermediate probabilities of the target disease, that is, when we are in a diagnostic ‘gray zone.’ Tests are least likely to be helpful either when we are so certain a patient has the target disease that the negative result of an imperfect test would not dissuade us from treating, or, conversely, when we are so certain that the patient does not have the target disease that a positive result of an imperfect test would not persuade us to treat. These concepts are illustrated in Figure 6.1, which divides the probability of a disease into three ranges:

1. do not treat (for the target disease) and do not test, because even a positive test would not persuade us to treat;

2. test, because the test will help with treatment decisions or with follow-up; and

3. treat and do not test, because even a negative test would not dissuade us from treating.

Treat implies patient management as if disease is present and may imply initiating medical therapy, performing a therapeutic procedure, advising a lifestyle or other adjuvant intervention, or a combination of these. Do not treat implies patient management as if disease is absent and usually means risk factor management, lifestyle advice, self-care and/or watchful waiting.

Introduction

How are decisions made in practice, and can we improve the process? Decisions in health care can be particularly awkward, involving a complex web of diagnostic and therapeutic uncertainties, patient preferences and values, and costs. It is not surprising that there is often considerable disagreement about the best course of action. One of the authors of this book tells the following story (1):

Introduction

Good decision analyses depend on both the veracity of the decision model and on the validity of the individual data elements. These elements may include probabilities (such as the pre-test probabilities, the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests, the probability of an adverse event, and so on), estimates of effectiveness of interventions (such as the relative risk reduction), and the valuation of outcomes (such as quality of life, utilities, and costs). Often we lack the information needed for a confident assessment of these elements. Decision analysis, by structuring a decision problem, makes these gaps in knowledge apparent. Sensitivity analysis on these ‘soft’ numbers will also give us insight into which of these knowledge gaps is most likely to affect our decisions. These same gaps exist in less systematic decision making as well, but there is no convenient way to determine how our decisions should be affected. In this chapter we shall cover the basic methods for finding the best estimate for each of the different elements that may be included in a formal decision analysis or in less systematic decision making.

Sometimes, but not as often as one would like, the estimates one is looking for can be inferred from a published study or from a series of cases that someone has reported in the literature or recorded in a data bank. This is generally considered the most satisfactory way of assessing a probability, because it involves the use of quantitative evidence. Often we will have a choice of data sources, so it is useful to have some ‘rules’ to guide the choice of possible estimates. One helpful concept is the ‘hierarchy of evidence’ (see www.cebm.net) which explicitly ranks the available evidence; ‘perfect’ data will rarely be available, but we need to know how to choose the best from the available imperfect data. This choice will also need to be tempered by the practicalities and purpose of each decision analysis: what is feasible will differ with a range from the urgent individual patient decision to a national policy decision to fund an expensive new procedure.