Understanding PPV and NPV in Healthcare Testing: Crucial Tools for Diagnostic Accuracy
“Improving the diagnostic process is not only possible, but also represents a moral, professional, and public health imperative.” – National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine1
This powerful statement highlights the critical need for ongoing advancements in diagnostic methods in order to uphold the highest standards of patient care.
Among the various metrics used to provide that care, predictive values stand out as essential indicators to assess diagnostic test accuracy. Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) gauge the likelihood that a diagnostic test correctly identifies positive or negative results, respectively.2
Higher percentages for both PPV and NPV instill confidence in test results, empowering clinicians to make better-informed decisions and provide timely and effective treatments for patients.
We’ll explore what predictive values are, how they relate to sensitivity and specificity, the factors that can influence their accuracy, and their critical significance in the healthcare industry.
What are Predictive Values?
Before understanding predictive values, we first must understand validity. The validity of a test tells you how effectively a test performs its intended function. It’s made up of two key metrics: sensitivity and specificity.3
Sensitivity measures how well a test identifies people who truly have the disease (true positives), while specificity measures how well it identifies those who don’t have the disease (true negatives). Both sensitivity and specificity are typically expressed as percentages and are determined by comparing test results to a “gold standard” — the most reliable testing method currently available for a particular condition.
While sensitivity and specificity are crucial, they don’t tell the whole story. This is where predictive values come into play. Predictive values help answer a critical question: Given a test result, what’s the likelihood that it’s accurate?
Understanding these values is crucial because they directly impact clinical decision-making. A high PPV gives clinicians confidence in pursuing further diagnostic procedures or treatments when a test is positive, while a high NPV provides reassurance when a test is negative.
It’s important to note that unlike sensitivity and specificity, predictive values are influenced by the prevalence of the disease in the population being tested. We’ll explore this relationship in more detail in the following sections.
PPV, NPV, & Disease Prevalence
While sensitivity and specificity are intrinsic properties of a test, predictive values are influenced by disease prevalence, or how common a condition is in a target population.
In high-prevalence populations, PPV tends to increase (positive results are more likely to be true positives).
Conversely, if the disease is rare, NPV tends to be higher, as negative results are more likely to be true negatives.
Even though PPV and NPV can be influenced by disease prevalence, they remain valuable and more relevant indicators of test accuracy in real-world scenarios where an individuals’ true disease status is unknown at the time of testing.
At Harbinger Health, we recognize that disease prevalence alongside sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values are crucial for accurate test interpretation. Let’s consider this real-world example: Lung cancer screening.
Low-dose CT (LDCT) scans have transformed lung cancer screening. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated their remarkable effectiveness, with a sensitivity of 93.8% and a specificity of 73.4%.4 In practical terms, this means LDCT scans accurately detect lung cancer in 93.8% of cases where it’s present, and correctly identify 73.4% of individuals who don’t have cancer.
However, these accuracy measures don’t tell the whole story.
The NLST screened over 50,000 high-risk patients aged 55-74 with long smoking histories. Only about 1.1% of those in the low-dose CT arm were diagnosed with cancer during the study.
Crucially, the positive predictive value of LDCT screening was just 3.8%.4 This means that despite LDCT’s high sensitivity and specificity, the vast majority (96.2%) of positive results were false.
In other words, most people who received a positive result did not actually have lung cancer, leading to many unnecessary diagnostic procedures.
This underscores the importance of considering not just a test’s sensitivity and specificity, but also its predictive value in the context of the population being screened.
Predictive Values & Patient Care
“Precision in diagnostics is our scientific imperative and professional responsibility. We recognize that a test’s true value lies in both its accuracy and clinical implications, enabling informed care decisions.” – Harbinger Health
The true value of diagnostic tests extends beyond mere basic accuracy (sensitivity, and specificity) to their impact on patient care. Predictive values play a pivotal role in this connection.
High PPV minimizes unnecessary testing and invasive procedures for false positives. Similarly, high NPV reduces the risk of missed diagnosis or delayed treatment for false negatives.
Harbinger Health & Diagnostic Testing
At Harbinger Health, we recognize that PPV and NPV are crucial metrics that reflect a test’s real-world predictive power.
These values are critical to practicing healthcare professionals, enabling more accurate diagnosis, as well as timely and effective patient care.
We are committed to developing tests with strong accuracy, recognizing the crucial role of predictive values alongside sensitivity and specificity. Our goal is to advance accessible and accurate diagnostics for all.
—
References
1. National Academies of Sciences E. Improving Diagnosis in Health Care.; 2015.
2. Molinaro AM. Diagnostic tests: how to estimate the positive predictive value. Neuro-Oncology Practice. 2015;2(4):162-166.
3. Shreffler J, Huecker MR. Diagnostic Testing Accuracy: Sensitivity, Specificity, Predictive Values and Likelihood Ratios. PubMed. Published March 6, 2023.
4. Results of Initial Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening for Lung Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013;368(21):1980-1991.
—
Stay in the loop on all of the exciting news, innovations, and developments from Harbinger Health. Sign up for updates in our e-newsletter.