reply to “use of ultrasound in the detection of intestinal drug smuggling”

1
Received: 2 June 2004 Accepted: 1 July 2004 Published online: 28 September 2004 © Springer-Verlag 2004 This reply refers to the Letter to the Editor at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004- 2468-0 Sir, Please find enclosed our response to the comments of Dr Howard and co-workers. We would like to thank Dr Howard and co-workers for their constructive remarks concerning our paper on identification of intestinal drug con- tainers by ultrasound [1]. We agree with Dr Howard that 84% of all pa- tients considered were positive dur- ing incarceration and that the infer- ence of our findings is limited to this group. However, in the discussion part of the paper we indicated that future studies among subjects with a lower a priori probability of having an intestinal drug container present should be performed. The properties of an ideal screen- ing test should be a high positive predictive value and a high negative predictive value. Since that is not often encountered, more emphasis goes to either one, depending on the consequences of a low positive pre- dictive value (many subjects will be incarcerated who did not swallow drug containers) versus a low nega- tive predictive value (many subjects with a negative test actually had in- testinal drug containers). In our pa- per, we emphasised a high positive predictive value at a cost of lower negative predictive value. However, please note that the number of nega- tive subjects was small and thus the precision of the estimate of the nega- tive predictive value was limited. It is worthwhile to know that both false negatives refer to so-called “pushers,” and the lower rectum area was initially not part of the scan protocol. Again, we feel that ultrasound testing, even in the absence of a gold standard, should be further evaluated in large populations with varying probabilities of intestinal drug con- tainers being present. One way of doing this is the construction of several populations comprising of “potential smuggles” and subjects known to have no intestinal drugs container. Of course, the sonogra- pher needs to be blinded with re- gards to the study design and who is who. In such an approach, the value of ultrasound in the detection of intestinal drug smugglers can be examined in a valid manner. References 1. Meijer R, Bots ML (2003) Detection of intestinal drug containers by ultrasound scanning: an airport screening tool? Eur Radiol 13:1312–1315 Eur Radiol (2005) 15:194 DOI 10.1007/s00330-004-2469-z LETTER TO THE EDITOR M. L. Bots R. L. Meijer Reply to “Use of ultrasound in the detection of intestinal drug smuggling” M. L. Bots · R. L. Meijer ( ) Department of Radiology E 01335, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +31-30-2509111 Fax: +31-30-2513399

Upload: m-l-bots

Post on 25-Aug-2016

215 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Reply to “Use of ultrasound in the detection of intestinal drug smuggling”

Received: 2 June 2004Accepted: 1 July 2004Published online: 28 September 2004© Springer-Verlag 2004

This reply refers to the Letter to the Editorat http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2468-0

Sir,Please find enclosed our response to the comments of Dr Howard andco-workers.

We would like to thank Dr Howardand co-workers for their constructiveremarks concerning our paper onidentification of intestinal drug con-tainers by ultrasound [1]. We agreewith Dr Howard that 84% of all pa-tients considered were positive dur-ing incarceration and that the infer-ence of our findings is limited to thisgroup. However, in the discussionpart of the paper we indicated thatfuture studies among subjects with alower a priori probability of havingan intestinal drug container presentshould be performed.

The properties of an ideal screen-ing test should be a high positivepredictive value and a high negativepredictive value. Since that is not often encountered, more emphasisgoes to either one, depending on theconsequences of a low positive pre-dictive value (many subjects will beincarcerated who did not swallowdrug containers) versus a low nega-tive predictive value (many subjectswith a negative test actually had in-testinal drug containers). In our pa-per, we emphasised a high positivepredictive value at a cost of lower

negative predictive value. However,please note that the number of nega-tive subjects was small and thus theprecision of the estimate of the nega-tive predictive value was limited. It is worthwhile to know that bothfalse negatives refer to so-called“pushers,” and the lower rectum area was initially not part of the scanprotocol.

Again, we feel that ultrasoundtesting, even in the absence of a goldstandard, should be further evaluatedin large populations with varyingprobabilities of intestinal drug con-tainers being present. One way ofdoing this is the construction of several populations comprising of“potential smuggles” and subjectsknown to have no intestinal drugscontainer. Of course, the sonogra-pher needs to be blinded with re-gards to the study design and who is who. In such an approach, the value of ultrasound in the detectionof intestinal drug smugglers can beexamined in a valid manner.

References

1. Meijer R, Bots ML (2003) Detection ofintestinal drug containers by ultrasoundscanning: an airport screening tool? EurRadiol 13:1312–1315

Eur Radiol (2005) 15:194DOI 10.1007/s00330-004-2469-z L E T T E R T O T H E E D I T O R

M. L. BotsR. L. Meijer

Reply to “Use of ultrasound in the detection of intestinal drug smuggling”

M. L. Bots · R. L. Meijer (✉)Department of Radiology E 01335,University Medical Center Utrecht,Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlandse-mail: [email protected].: +31-30-2509111Fax: +31-30-2513399