Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login
  • Admin

Using ROC curves to choose minimally important change thresholds when sensitivity and specificity are valued equally : the forgotten lesson of Pythagoras : theoretical considerations and an example application of change in health status

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

Froud, Robert J. and Abel, Gary (2014) Using ROC curves to choose minimally important change thresholds when sensitivity and specificity are valued equally : the forgotten lesson of Pythagoras : theoretical considerations and an example application of change in health status. PLoS One, Volume 9 (Number 12). Article number e114468. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114468

[img]
Preview
PDF (Creative Commons : Attribution 4.0)
WRAP_journal.pone.0114468.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer.

Download (767Kb) | Preview
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114468

Request Changes to record.

Abstract

Background

Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves are being used to identify Minimally Important Change (MIC) thresholds on scales that measure a change in health status. In quasi-continuous patient reported outcome measures, such as those that measure changes in chronic diseases with variable clinical trajectories, sensitivity and specificity are often valued equally. Notwithstanding methodologists agreeing that these should be valued equally, different approaches have been taken to estimating MIC thresholds using ROC curves.

Aims and objectives

We aimed to compare the different approaches used with a new approach, exploring the extent to which the methods choose different thresholds, and considering the effect of differences on conclusions in responder analyses.

Methods

Using graphical methods, hypothetical data, and data from a large randomised controlled trial of manual therapy for low back pain, we compared two existing approaches with a new approach that is based on the addition of the sums of squares of 1-sensitivity and 1-specificity.

Results

There can be divergence in the thresholds chosen by different estimators. The cut-point selected by different estimators is dependent on the relationship between the cut-points in ROC space and the different contours described by the estimators. In particular, asymmetry and the number of possible cut-points affects threshold selection.

Conclusion
Choice of MIC estimator is important. Different methods for choosing cut-points can lead to materially different MIC thresholds and thus affect results of responder analyses and trial conclusions. An estimator based on the smallest sum of squares of 1-sensitivity and 1-specificity is preferable when sensitivity and specificity are valued equally. Unlike other methods currently in use, the cut-point chosen by the sum of squares method always and efficiently chooses the cut-point closest to the top-left corner of ROC space, regardless of the shape of the ROC curve.

Item Type: Journal Article
Subjects: Q Science > QA Mathematics
Divisions: Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Clinical Trials Unit
Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): Receiver operating characteristic curves, Medical care -- Research
Journal or Publication Title: PLoS One
Publisher: Public Library of Science
ISSN: 1932-6203
Official Date: 4 December 2014
Dates:
DateEvent
4 December 2014Published
7 November 2014Accepted
2 June 2014Submitted
Volume: Volume 9
Number: Number 12
Article Number: Article number e114468
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114468
Status: Peer Reviewed
Publication Status: Published
Access rights to Published version: Open Access

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics

twitter

Email us: wrap@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us