Literature DB >> 14615003

Assessment of the accuracy of diagnostic tests: the cross-sectional study.

J A Knottnerus1, J W Muris.   

Abstract

In diagnostic accuracy studies, the contrast of interest can be one of the following: one single test contrast; comparing two or more single tests; further testing in addition to previous diagnostics; and comparing alternative diagnostic strategies. The clinical diagnostic problem under study must be specified. Studies of "extreme contrasts" (as early phase evaluations) and studies in "clinical practice" settings (assessing clinical value) should be distinguished. Design options are (1) survey of the total study population, (2) case-referent approach, or (3) test-based enrollment. Data collection should generally be prospective, but ambispective and retrospective approaches are sometimes appropriate. In addition to determinants of primary interest [the test(s) under study] possible modifiers of test accuracy and confounding variables must be specified. The reference standard procedure should be independent from the test results. Applying a reference standard can be difficult in case of classification errors, lack of a clear pathophysiologic concept, incorporation bias, or invasive or complex investigations. Possible solutions are: an independent expert panel, and the delayed type cross-sectional study (clinical follow-up). Also, a prognostic criterion can be chosen. For studies to be relevant for practice, inclusion criteria must be based on "intention to diagnose" or "intention to screen." The recruitment procedure is preferably a consecutive series of presenting patients or a target population screening, respectively. Sample size estimation should be routine. Analysis has to be focused on the contrast of interest. Estimating test accuracy and prediction of outcome need different approaches. External (clinical) validation requires repeated studies in other, similar populations. Also, systematic reviews and meta-analysis have a role. To enable readers of diagnostic research reports to evaluate whether methodological key issues were addressed, authors are advised to follow the STARD guidelines.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14615003     DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00206-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  57 in total

1.  The diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET in cutaneous malignant melanoma.

Authors:  Bruno Krug; Anne-Sophie Pirson; Ralph Crott; Thierry Vander Borght
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 2.  The true treatment benefit is unpredictable in clinical trials using surrogate outcome measured with diagnostic tests.

Authors:  Behrouz Kassaï; Nirav R Shah; Alain Leizorovicza; Michel Cucherat; Francois Gueyffier; Jean-Pierre Boissel
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 3.  How to critically appraise an article.

Authors:  Jane M Young; Michael J Solomon
Journal:  Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2009-01-20

4.  Whole-Body Plethysmography in Suspected Asthma: A Prospective Study of Its Added Diagnostic Value in 302 Patients.

Authors:  Antonius Schneider; Johannes Schwarzbach; Bernhard Faderl; Hubert Hautmann; Rudolf A Jörres
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2015-06-12       Impact factor: 5.594

5.  Evaluation of Diagnostic Tests.

Authors:  Brendan J Barrett; John M Fardy
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

6.  Accuracy of symptoms and signs for coronary heart disease assessed in primary care.

Authors:  Stefan Bösner; Annette Becker; Maren Abu Hani; Heidi Keller; Andreas C Sönnichsen; Jörg Haasenritter; Konstantinos Karatolios; Juergen R Schaefer; Erika Baum; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Screening for depression in medical settings with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ): a diagnostic meta-analysis.

Authors:  Simon Gilbody; David Richards; Stephen Brealey; Catherine Hewitt
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-09-14       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Selection and presentation of imaging figures in the medical literature.

Authors:  George C M Siontis; Nikolaos A Patsopoulos; Antonios P Vlahos; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-05-28       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Heartburn or angina? Differentiating gastrointestinal disease in primary care patients presenting with chest pain: a cross sectional diagnostic study.

Authors:  Stefan Bösner; Jörg Haasenritter; Annette Becker; Maren A Hani; Heidi Keller; Andreas C Sönnichsen; Konstantinos Karatolios; Juergen R Schaefer; Erika Baum; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff
Journal:  Int Arch Med       Date:  2009-12-12

10.  Gender differences in presentation and diagnosis of chest pain in primary care.

Authors:  Stefan Bösner; Jörg Haasenritter; Maren A Hani; Heidi Keller; Andreas C Sönnichsen; Konstantinos Karatolios; Juergen R Schaefer; Erika Baum; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2009-12-14       Impact factor: 2.497

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.