Challenging script concordance test reference standard by evidence: do judgments by emergency medicine consultants agree with likelihood ratios?

摘要: Background: We aimed to compare the clinical judgments of a reference panel emergency medicine academic physicians against evidence-based likelihood ratios (LRs) regarding diagnostic value selected and paraclinical findings in context script concordance test (SCT). Findings: A SCT with six scenarios five questions per scenario was developed. Subsequently, 15 attending (reference panel) took their those for given diseases were recorded. The LRs same extracted from series published systematic reviews. Then, compared LRs. To investigate test-retest reliability, participants one month later, correlation first second quantified using Spearman rank-order coefficient. In 22 out 30 (73.3%) findings, expert significantly different differences included overestimation (30%), underestimation judging an opposite direction (13.3%). Moreover, score hypothetical test-taker calculated be 21.73 if his/her answers based on showed acceptable reliability coefficient (Spearman coefficient: 0.83).