- Joined
- Nov 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,349
- Reaction score
- 193
So why isn't this the other way around? Intuitively, it makes more sense that you would want to use high sensitivity test to rule in some one has a dz, since the definition of sensitivity is the probability of that a person with a dz has a positive test. What am I missing here?
Let's say that a sensitivity is 100% and you test some one and get a positive result, then you are 100% confident to rule in the dz, right? Why should we think the other way around? Here is what FC says:
Let's say that a sensitivity is 100% and you test some one and get a positive result, then you are 100% confident to rule in the dz, right? Why should we think the other way around? Here is what FC says:
- Use high-sensitivity tests to rule out disease: Tests with sensitivity close to 1 have a low false-negative rate