Literature DB >> 11893368

Effects of adjustment for referral bias on the sensitivity and specificity of single photon emission computed tomography for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease.

Todd D Miller1, David O Hodge, Timothy F Christian, James J Milavetz, Kent R Bailey, Raymond J Gibbons.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Referral bias, in which the result of a diagnostic test affects the subsequent referral for a more definitive test, influences the accuracy of noninvasive tests for coronary artery disease. This study evaluates the effect of referral bias on the apparent accuracy of single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT).
METHODS: Over a 10-year period, 14,273 patients without known coronary artery disease underwent stress SPECT. Coronary angiography was performed within 3 months after the stress test in 1853 patients (13%). The apparent sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios of SPECT were determined in these patients, and then adjusted for referral bias using two different formulas.
RESULTS: The overwhelming majority (95%) of patients who underwent angiography had abnormal SPECT images. Apparent values for test indices were a sensitivity of 98%, a specificity of 13%, a likelihood ratio for a positive test of 1.1, and a likelihood ratio for a negative test of 0.15. Test indices adjusted for referral bias (using the two methods) were a sensitivity of 65% or 67%, a specificity of 67% or 75%, a likelihood ratio for a positive test of 2.0 or 2.7, and a likelihood ratio for a negative test of 0.44 or 0.52.
CONCLUSION: Referral bias has a marked effect on the apparent accuracy of stress SPECT for the diagnosis of coronary disease. Adjustment for referral bias yields estimates for sensitivity and specificity and likelihood ratios that better reflect the accuracy of the technique.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11893368     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9343(01)01111-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med        ISSN: 0002-9343            Impact factor:   4.965


  26 in total

Review 1.  New insights from major prospective cohort studies with cardiac CT.

Authors:  Sumbal A Janjua; Udo Hoffmann
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.931

2.  Diagnostic accuracy of myocardial perfusion imaging in a study population without post-test referral bias.

Authors:  Allan Johansen; Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen; Henrik Wulff Christensen; Werner Vach; Henrik Boel Jørgensen; Annegrete Veje; Torben Haghfelt
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2005 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.952

3.  Can the ST segment be saved?

Authors:  Michael S Lauer
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2005 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.952

4.  Automatic registration of misaligned CT attenuation correction maps in Rb-82 PET/CT improves detection of angiographically significant coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Piotr J Slomka; Mariana Diaz-Zamudio; Damini Dey; Manish Motwani; Yafim Brodov; David Choi; Sean Hayes; Louise Thomson; John Friedman; Guido Germano; Daniel Berman
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-02-20       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  Differences by HIV serostatus in coronary artery disease severity and likelihood of percutaneous coronary intervention following stress testing.

Authors:  Matthew J Feinstein; Brian Poole; Pedro Engel Gonzalez; Anna E Pawlowski; Daniel Schneider; Tim S Provias; Frank J Palella; Chad J Achenbach; Donald M Lloyd-Jones
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 5.952

6.  Diagnostic Performance of Hybrid Cardiac Imaging Methods for Assessment of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease Compared With Stand-Alone Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Asim Rizvi; Donghee Han; Ibrahim Danad; Bríain Ó Hartaigh; Ji Hyun Lee; Heidi Gransar; Wijnand J Stuijfzand; Hadi Mirhedayati Roudsari; Mahn Won Park; Jackie Szymonifka; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Erica C Jones; Paul Knaapen; Fay Y Lin; James K Min; Jessica M Peña
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2017-08-16

Review 7.  Sex differences in the diagnostic evaluation of coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Patricia K Nguyen; Divya Nag; Joseph C Wu
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 5.952

8.  Stress single photon emission computed tomography for detection of coronary artery disease and risk stratification of asymptomatic patients at moderate risk.

Authors:  Masud H Khandaker; Todd D Miller; Panithaya Chareonthaitawee; J Wells Askew; David O Hodge; Raymond J Gibbons
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2009-05-14       Impact factor: 5.952

9.  Comparison of fully automated computer analysis and visual scoring for detection of coronary artery disease from myocardial perfusion SPECT in a large population.

Authors:  Reza Arsanjani; Yuan Xu; Sean W Hayes; Mathews Fish; Mark Lemley; James Gerlach; Sharmila Dorbala; Daniel S Berman; Guido Germano; Piotr Slomka
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2013-01-11       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  Comparison of computed tomographic angiography versus rubidium-82 positron emission tomography for the detection of patients with anatomical coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Benjamin J W Chow; Carole Dennie; Udo Hoffmann; Derek So; Robert A de Kemp; Terrence D Ruddy; Rob S Beanlands
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 5.223

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.