Question normal

In Nuclear Medicine, we see a large number of research publications on diagnostic accuracies. The standard parameters in the study outcome are numbers representing the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, etc. Further, we have survival studies talking about overall and progression-free survival comparing different interventions. Most of us, as residents are often overwhelmed by these numbers and tend to stick with the traditional statistics for a given scenario. How to deal with this fact, both in terms of retaining the data, as well as to make meaningful conclusions and correlations among studies to remain abreast with the latest research? Is the key in the numbers themselves or is it something beyond?