Literature DB >> 18582626

Interpreting diagnostic test accuracy studies.

Patrick M M Bossuyt1.   

Abstract

A central phase in the evaluation of a medical test is the assessment of its diagnostic accuracy: the degree to which the test results correspond to those of the clinical reference standard. There are several methods by which the results of diagnostic accuracy studies can be summarized, reported, and interpreted. Here we provide an overview and a critical commentary of three measures: error-based measures, information-based measures, and measures of the strength of the association. All of these measures may vary between studies, with changes in the definition of the target condition, the spectrum of disease, the setting, and the amount of prior testing. We discuss the relativity of the claim that likelihood ratios are a superior way of expressing diagnostic accuracy, and defend the use of the sometimes downgraded sensitivity and specificity.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18582626     DOI: 10.1053/j.seminhematol.2008.04.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Hematol        ISSN: 0037-1963            Impact factor:   3.851


  8 in total

1.  Chapter 9: options for summarizing medical test performance in the absence of a "gold standard".

Authors:  Thomas A Trikalinos; Cynthia M Balion
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Clinicians should not be forced to use likelihood ratios when comparing tests.

Authors:  J F Cohen; M Chalumeau; P M Bossuyt
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2016-10-01       Impact factor: 3.267

Review 3.  A 'biomarker signature' for tolerance in transplantation.

Authors:  Maria P Hernandez-Fuentes; Robert I Lechler
Journal:  Nat Rev Nephrol       Date:  2010-08-17       Impact factor: 28.314

4.  Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.

Authors:  Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan J Deeks; Constantine Gatsonis; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Cross-sectional analysis of circulating tumor DNA in primary colorectal cancer at surgery and during post-surgery follow-up by liquid biopsy.

Authors:  Matteo Allegretti; Giuliano Cottone; Fabio Carboni; Ettore Cotroneo; Beatrice Casini; Elena Giordani; Carla Azzurra Amoreo; Simonetta Buglioni; Maria Diodoro; Edoardo Pescarmona; Settimio Zazza; Orietta Federici; Massimo Zeuli; Laura Conti; Giovanni Cigliana; Francesco Fiorentino; Mario Valle; Patrizio Giacomini; Francesca Spinella
Journal:  J Exp Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2020-04-20

6.  A Software Tool for Calculating the Uncertainty of Diagnostic Accuracy Measures.

Authors:  Theodora Chatzimichail; Aristides T Hatjimihail
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-02-27

7.  A qualitative study into the difficulties experienced by healthcare decision makers when reading a Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy review.

Authors:  Zhivko Zhelev; Ruth Garside; Christopher Hyde
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2013-05-16

8.  Diagnostic value of serum HER2 levels in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Amir Shamshirian; Amir Reza Aref; George W Yip; Majid Ebrahimi Warkiani; Keyvan Heydari; Sajad Razavi Bazaz; Zeinab Hamzehgardeshi; Danial Shamshirian; Mahmood Moosazadeh; Reza Alizadeh-Navaei
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2020-10-31       Impact factor: 4.430

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.