Discussion + 2 replies

Ace your studies with our custom writing services! We've got your back for top grades and timely submissions, so you can say goodbye to the stress. Trust us to get you there!

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

An important part of building evidence-based practice is the development, refinement, and use of quality diagnostic tests and measures in research and practice. Discuss the role of sensitivity and specificity in accuracy of a screening test?

0 plagiarism – No plagiarism – No chat GTP

Please include 500 words with two scholarly articles no later than 5 years old. and Two replies to classmates with 300 words. Please see attachment for replies.


A fundamental portion of setting-up evidence-based hone is the further progression,

refinement, and utilization of high-quality diagnostic tests and measures in research and hone. A

basic perspective of assessing the quality of a screening test is looking over its precision,

especially its sensitivity and specificity (Dziak et al., 2020). Sensitivity is a test's capacity to

accurately recognize people who have an ailment, and specificity is a test's capacity to absolutely

recognize people who do not have a sickness. High sensitivity and specificity are appealing

properties for maximizing test precision and utility.

When evaluating the precision of a contamination screening test, sensitivity especially

appears the likelihood that the test will abandon off-base negative results and fall-flat to

recognize patients with the ailment (Breton et al., 2019). For outline, as Breton et al. (2019) note,

less fragile screening tests for memory incapacity may not clearly recognize between patients

with early signs of dementia or Alzheimer's disease. Breton et al. (2019) found in an expressive

meta-analysis that the sensitivity rates of brief cognitive tests for mild cognitive impedance

(MCI) were generally low, regularly underneath 80%. This suggests that more than 20% of

patients with truly cognitive decay get unfaithful negative test results. In contrast, tests with

>90% sensitivity rarely miss patients with early but basic memory inability (Dziak et al., 2020).

In any case, in the event that a test is too delicate, patients can be over-diagnosed and

labeled as possibly debilitated when they really don't have the illness. Specificity diminishes this

effect by demonstrating the degree to which a test avoids patients without signs. Tests with high

specificity of >90% rarely classify sound individuals as potentially disabled (Breton et al., 2019).

Creating fair-minded, moral, and profitable screening methodologies for infections such as MCI

requires a balance between high sensitivity to precisely recognize between genuine cases and

high specificity to dodge false-positive results.

In general, sensitivity may be a coordinate degree of the adequacy and precision of a

screening test in recognizing between patients with ongoing or pre-existing illness, though

specificity could be a coordinate degree of how well it separates between sound individuals

(Dziak et al., 2020). Lacking sensitivity defeats the total purpose of the test, which is to

recognize patients who require early mediations. Low specificity results in wrong referral of

solid individuals for inconsequential follow-up evaluations, wasting resources and growing

patient stress. Research ought to empower refine unused techniques to screen for cognitive

changes to adjust the challenges of sensitivity and specificity to realize strong and unbiased MCI

disclosure in different patient populaces. Fulfilling such accuracy and esteem is crucial to

enabling helpful bolster and care to a few patients with changing cognitive capacities.


Evidence-based practice is a cornerstone of healthcare excellence in integrating research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient preferences to guide treatment interventions and optimize patient care. One aspect of care delivery that is significantly important is running diagnostic tests to screen, detect, and monitor diseases, which simultaneously affects evidence-based practice and is pivotal to its effectiveness. The need to optimize diagnostic testing and maximize the usefulness of results has seen medical practitioners emphasize sensitivity and specificity. Therefore, this paper discusses two critical roles of the parameters: how they aid in alleviating false positives and negatives during the screening process and analyzing the overall accuracy of tests.

Sensitivity is the capacity of a test in diagnosis to turn out positive readings indicating the presence of a disease in an individual correctly. Specificity refers to the accuracy of a test to turn out negative readings, with a minimal margin for false positives (Shreffler & Huecker, 2023). The two operate interchangeably to ensure the accuracy of screening tests, making their contributions indispensable. Based on the definitions of the terms, one of the roles is that they aid in alleviating false positives and negatives during the screening process, paving the way to achieve test results that lower the chances of a disease being missed or being wrongly diagnosed (Olliaro & Torreele, 2021). The parameters aid in pursuing a holistic intervention toward care and treatment that elevates the patient’s outcome. Especially when it comes to the screening of diseases like cancer and HIV, whose early detection plays a massive role in the treatment and management, there is a need for a high level of accuracy in screening. Sensitivity and specificity, therefore, impact patient care by aiding in reducing morbidity rates from diseases by allowing for their detection in their earliest stages and facilitating precise treatment delivery during this period when it is considered more successful.

Sensitivity and specificity play another role in assessing the overall accuracy of screening tests. The parameters help establish the gold standard, which offers the best possible assessment of the status of a disease (Monaghan et al., 2021). With these parameters in place, medical practitioners can assess which tests can deliver the most accurate results within a population and, therefore, adopt such tests to guide them in offering patients the ideal care plans. In line with this, sensitivity and specificity complement PPV and NPV probabilities, offering a robust framework to aid medical practitioners in decision-making, ultimately improving patient healthcare. These roles of sensitivity and specificity reveal how crucial accurate screening is in achieving the success of evidence-based practice and realizing optimal care delivery.


Looking for top-notch essay writing services? We've got you covered! Connect with our writing experts today. Placing your order is easy, taking less than 5 minutes. Click below to get started.

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper