Talk:Clinical utility of diagnostic tests

This article was nominated for merging with Diagnostic test on 29 January 2011. The result of the discussion was Merge.

Reasons for changings

It is not necessary that a person has symptoms before being tested (f.i. screening tests).

B. The sentence that a good test allows to pick up other test and so on is not relevant in the context where it is explained why pre-test probability influences post-test probability.

Michel soete (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please use in-line citations

I converted the "reference" list to further reading. This list of readings cannot be used as references unless somebody uses wp:inline citations to link each one to its statement. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to diagnostic test

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Merge. Little rationale has been provided for the merge, but since more than 30 days have passed without opposition, this is considered a consensus to merge per Wikipedia policy.NukeofEarl (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason for being a separate article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Responses on the remarks of Mikael Häggström

If you have read the 'further reading' you saw that these articles were the sources of what I wrote. I do'nt think that merging this article in the article 'diagnostic test' is a good idea. I do'nt describe what a diagnostic test is but how it can (should) be used in a diagnostic context.

In America there were very much trials against physicians. This gave rise to concepts as 'evidence based medicine', 'informed consent', shared decision making', in ideal terms a shared good for the physician and for the patient, I guess. It is in that framework of thinking that the article can be read. I am aware that it is written in a way that is too difficult for many, presumably most of patients, but I am convinced that it is written in a much more understandable way for laymen than the article 'Diagnostic test'. This is a secondary reason, so it seems to me, to not merge this article.

Michel soete (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]