|Signs/Findings||Increased Disease Probability (Positive Likelihood Ratio)|
|Bone Exposure||9.2× (0.57-146)|
|Ulcer Area > 2cm²||7.2× (1.1-4.9)|
|Positive probe-to-bone test||6.4× (3.6-11)|
|Clinical Gestalt||5.5× (1.8-17)|
|Ulcer inflammation (erythema, swelling, purulence)||1.5× (0.51-4.7)|
|Lab and Study Findings||Increased Disease Probability (Positive Likelihood Ratio)|
|ESR > 70 mm/h||11× (1.6-79.0)|
|Abnormal findings [indicating osteomyelitis] on plain Radiograph||2.3× (1.56-3.3)||Swab Culture||1× (0.65-1.5)|
|Signs/Findings||Increased Disease Probability (Negative Likelihood Ratio)|
|Positive probe-to-bone test||0.39× (0.20-0.76)|
|Ulcer Area > 2cm²||0.48× (0.31-0.76)|
|Clinical Gestalt||0.54× (0.30-0.97)|
|Bone Exposure||0.70× (0.53-0.92)|
|Ulcer inflammation (erythema, swelling, purulence)||0.84× (0.56-1.3)|
|Lab and Study Findings||Decreased Disease Probability (Negative Likelihood Ratio)|
|ESR > 70 mm/h||0.34× (0.06-1.9)|
|Abnormal findings [indicating osteomyelitis] on plain Radiograph||0.63× (0.51-0.78)|
|Swab Culture||1× (0.08-13)|
Source: Butalia S, Palda VA, Sargeant RJ, Detsky AS, Mourad O. Does this patient with
diabetes have osteomyelitis of the lower extremity? JAMA. 2008 Feb
20;299(7):806-13. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.7.806. Review. PubMed PMID: 18285592.
Caveats: Studies were retro- or prospective; mostly level III or IV evidence; most patients had foot ulcers, or infection, or suspected osteomyelits; all tests used gold standard (bone biopsy w histopathology diagnosis, bone culture or both) for comparison; In- or out-patient location was not clear in most cases; likely strong selection bias.
Not all criteria for evaluation of osteomyelitis on radiographic examination were reported in each study.
Author: Rodrigo Kong, MD and Shahriar Zehtabchi, MD
Published/Updated: February 15, 2013
LR, pretest probability and posttest (or posterior) probability are daunting terms that describe simple concepts that we all intuitively understand.
Let's start with pretest probability: that's just a fancy term for my initial impression, before we perform whatever test it is that we're going to use.
For example, a patient with prior stents comes in sweating and clutching his chest in agony, I have a pretty high suspicion that he's having an MI – let's say, 60%. That is my pretest probability.
He immediately gets an ECG (known here as the "test") showing an obvious STEMI.
Now, I know there are some STEMI mimics, so I'm not quite 100%, but based on my experience I'm 99.5% sure that he's having an MI right now. This is my posttest probability - the new impression I have that the patient has the disease after we did our test.
And likelihood ration? That's just the name for the statistical tool that converted the pretest probability to the posttest probability - it's just a mathematical description of the strength of that test.
Using an online calculator, that means the LR+ that got me from 60% to 99.5% is 145, which is about as high an LR you can get (and the actual LR for an emergency physician who thinks an ECG shows an obvious STEMI).
(Thank you to Seth Trueger, MD for this explanation!)
If you have suggestions, requests, or questions about a particular NNT review, please send us a message and we’ll try to address it as soon as possible.