Literature DB >> 10544616

[Methodology of diagnostic validation studies. Errors in planning and analysis].

K Jensen1, U Abel.   

Abstract

The evaluation of diagnostic tests play an important role in clinical research. Though detailed standards have been developed for treatment evaluation, widely accepted methodological standards in diagnostic test research are still lacking. Following recent methodological research German biostatisticians usually distinguish between 4 types of diagnostic validation studies (Phase I to IV). The diagnostic value of a test can be described by indexes like sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Sensitivity and specificity are so-called nosological probabilities whereas predictive values describe the probabilities of the disease given a positive or negative test result, respectively. These posterior probabilities depend on the prevalence of the disease in question. The methodological problems that arise in the planning of diagnostic studies differ from those encountered in treatment evaluation. This contribution presents an annotated checklist of the most important faults and shortcomings in the planning and the analysis of diagnostic validation studies. Avoiding these deficiencies may help that the study results are accepted by biostatisticians, clinicians and cost units.

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10544616     DOI: 10.1007/bf03044946

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)        ISSN: 0723-5003


  9 in total

Review 1.  Reporting of precision of estimates for diagnostic accuracy: a review.

Authors:  R Harper; B Reeves
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-05-15

2.  The influence of uninterpretability on the assessment of diagnostic tests.

Authors:  C B Begg; R A Greenes; B Iglewicz
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1986

3.  Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good.

Authors:  M C Reid; M S Lachs; A R Feinstein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995 Aug 23-30       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias.

Authors:  C B Begg; R A Greenes
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  [Diagnostic value of Doppler ultrasound in evaluation of breast tumors].

Authors:  E M Grischke; D von Fournier; C Sohn; D Wallwiener; G Bastert
Journal:  Zentralbl Gynakol       Date:  1996

6.  Impact of follow-up testing on survival and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients. A multicenter randomized controlled trial. The GIVIO Investigators.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-05-25       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  [Model calculations for HIV screening of blood and plasma donors with a combination of 2 screening tests: test strategies, validity, costs and effectiveness].

Authors:  U Abel; S T Kiessig
Journal:  Infusionsther Transfusionsmed       Date:  1995-06

8.  Factors affecting sensitivity and specificity of exercise electrocardiography. Multivariable analysis.

Authors:  M A Hlatky; D B Pryor; F E Harrell; R M Califf; D B Mark; R A Rosati
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1984-07       Impact factor: 4.965

9.  Intensive diagnostic follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer. A randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer follow-up.

Authors:  M Rosselli Del Turco; D Palli; A Cariddi; S Ciatto; P Pacini; V Distante
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-05-25       Impact factor: 56.272

  9 in total
  2 in total

Review 1.  Novel MRI techniques in the assessment of dementia.

Authors:  Stefan J Teipel; Thomas Meindl; Lea Grinberg; Helmut Heinsen; Harald Hampel
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 2.  [Neurobiological early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease].

Authors:  H Hampel; S J Teipel; K Bürger
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 1.214

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.