3 ms·
I understand what you're trying to say, but in your specific example, it's more like 15/1000 would be sent on for confirmatory testing (western blot), of which
by duncanj 15y ago
I understand what you're trying to say, but in your specific example, it's more like 15/1000 would be sent on for confirmatory testing (western blot), of which only about 1 in 10,000 would be false positives. In your scenario, this screening of those who request the test but otherwise do not need it would result in statistically very few false positives, on the order of 1 in 175,000 of those who make the request.
Perhaps a more likely error would be among those who request testing for Lyme disease (currently a popular self diagnosis) and thus get put on an unnecessary regimen of doxycycline. I'm racking my brain trying to think of an example that would be much, much worse. Perhaps testing for antinuclear antibodies and getting diagnosed with lupus?
- kenjackson 15y agoYes, I was trying to think of a "chronic" condition where a test result is sufficient to believe you have the illness (that is, the lack of symptoms is not sufficient). But I think we both agree that HIV is a generous case in that the testing is fairly accurate. There are many illnesses with no great tests. The more obscure, the more likely there won't be a test for it. So you end up in a situation where you go to the doctor with a rash and your diagnosis is "an allergy to strawberries or leprosy".