IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v16y1996i2p178-183.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sequential Test Selection in the Analysis of Abdominal Pain

Author

Listed:
  • Frank Castro
  • Leonard P. Caccamo
  • Kimbroe J. Carter
  • Barbara A. Erickson
  • William Johnson
  • Edward Kessler
  • Nathan P. Ritchey
  • Claudio A. Ruiz

Abstract

Numerous decision-making tools exist to assist physicians in diagnosis management. However, the accuracy of available clinical information is often ambiguous or unknown and current analytical models do not explicitly incorporate judgmentally defined infor mation. A model encompassing both physician judgment and probability analysis was developed to accommodate such data. A problem requiring sequential diagnostic test ing was structured utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The case presented involved a patient complaining of upper abdominal pain who, after initial evaluation, did not need immediate surgery. Physicians were faced with identifying the optimal sequence of diagnostic testing. The criteria used for test selection included minimizing risk, patient discomfort, and cost of testing and maximizing diagnostic capability. Al though at the onset the "best" test choice was unknown, the clinical picture indicated four test alternatives: upper gastrointestinal series (GI), abdominal ultrasonography (US), abdominal computed tomography (CT), and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (END). Based upon the relative preferences of the criteria utilized, the AHP analysis indicated that upper GI series was the optimal first test. Given a negative test, posterior probabilities were calculated using Bayes' theorem, resulting in a new estimate of diagnostic capability. The AHP analysis was reiterated, identifying abdominal ultraso nography as the optimal second test. This analysis may be repeated as many times as necessary. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that changing criteria preferences may alter the choice of tests and/or their sequence. Key words: analytic hierarchy process (AHP); Bayes' theorem; test sequence; diagnosis; sensitivity analysis. (Med Decis Making 1996;16:178-183)

Suggested Citation

  • Frank Castro & Leonard P. Caccamo & Kimbroe J. Carter & Barbara A. Erickson & William Johnson & Edward Kessler & Nathan P. Ritchey & Claudio A. Ruiz, 1996. "Sequential Test Selection in the Analysis of Abdominal Pain," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(2), pages 178-183, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:16:y:1996:i:2:p:178-183
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9601600210
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9601600210
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9601600210?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matthew Liberatore & Robert Nydick & Constantine Daskalakis & Elisabeth Kunkel & James Cocroft & Ronald Myers, 2009. "Helping Men Decide About Scheduling a Prostate Cancer Screening Exam," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 39(3), pages 209-217, June.
    2. Liberatore, Matthew J. & Nydick, Robert L., 2008. "The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 194-207, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:16:y:1996:i:2:p:178-183. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.