Doctor’s Passport

Find your next topic

Explore the current textbook

Available drafts · Clinical review pending
Membership
Educational draft · awaiting clinical reviewUse Rapid for revision, not patient-care decisions. Check current national and local guidance and the BNF or BNFC before acting.
RapidMLAMSRAMRCP

Diagnostic reasoning and test interpretation

Essential points for quick revision.

Saved on this device

Synopsis

Move from clinical data to calibrated diagnostic probabilities, choose tests by decision value, and revise conclusions when results, trajectories or competing explanations disagree.

  • Define the decision before ordering a test: rule out a dangerous possibility, confirm a treatable diagnosis, stage disease, select treatment or monitor change.
  • Estimate pre-test probability from the patient's pattern and relevant population; predictive values cannot be transported unchanged when prevalence differs.
  • Convert probability to odds, multiply by the likelihood ratio, then convert post-test odds back to probability when a quantitative update is needed.

Reasoning priorities

01
Pre-test probability estimate

Anchor interpretation to the patient and setting before the result is known.

Use a validated clinical model when applicable or state a reasoned range; retrospective estimates after seeing the result are vulnerable to hindsight.

Worked reasoning

Worked exampleUpdate probability with a negative test

Inputs: pre-test probability 30%; a negative result from a test with sensitivity 90% and specificity 80%; decide whether the result crosses a 5% action threshold.

  1. Convert pre-test probability to odds: 0.30 divided by 0.70 equals 0.4286.
  2. Calculate LR−: one minus sensitivity, 0.10, divided by specificity, 0.80, equals 0.125.
  3. Multiply: post-test odds equal 0.4286 times 0.125, which is 0.0536.
  4. Convert back: 0.0536 divided by 1.0536 equals 0.0509, or about 5.1%; the result sits just above rather than below the stated 5% threshold.
  5. Conclude that the negative test narrowly fails the predefined threshold, so further evidence or observation is needed rather than calling disease excluded.
  6. Verify with 1,000 people at 30% prevalence: 300 have disease, giving 270 true positives and 30 false negatives at 90% sensitivity; 700 do not have disease, giving 560 true negatives and 140 false positives at 80% specificity. Of the 590 negative results, 30 have disease: 30/590 = 5.08%, agreeing with the odds calculation and remaining just above the hypothetical 5% action threshold.
Test-selection pathwayAsk what the result can change

A stable patient has an intermediate probability of a condition and several possible tests.

Open full textbook Answer 2 questions
Sources and review status5 sources · checked 7 Sept 2026 · clinical review pending
Sources

Sources and review status

National guidance is shown before implementation-dependent detail. Apply principles in context and verify current guidance when a decision affects care. Source check completed 7 Sept 2026; clinical approval remains outstanding.

Authoring stateRapid draftClinical stateAwaiting reviewJurisdictionUnited Kingdom