Literature DB >> 20393716

Design-related bias in estimates of accuracy when comparing imaging tests: examples from breast imaging research.

Nehmat Houssami1, Stefano Ciatto.   

Abstract

This work highlights concepts on the potential for designrelated factors to bias estimates of test accuracy in comparative imaging research. We chose two design factors, selection of eligible subjects and the reference standard, to examine the effect of design limitations on estimates of accuracy. Estimates of sensitivity in a study of the comparative accuracy of mammography and ultrasound differed according to how subjects were selected. Comparison of a new imaging test with an existing test should distinguish whether the new test is to be used as a replacement for, or as an adjunct to, the conventional test, to guide the method for subject selection. Quality of the reference standard, examined in a meta-analysis of preoperative breast MRI, varied across studies and was associated with estimates of incremental accuracy. Potential solutions to deal with the reference standard are outlined where an ideal reference standard may not be available in all subjects. These examples of breast imaging research demonstrate that design-related bias, when comparing a new imaging test with a conventional imaging test, may bias accuracy in a direction that favours the new test by overestimating the accuracy of the new test or by underestimating that of the conventional test.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20393716     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-1779-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  21 in total

1.  Sensitivity of MRI versus mammography for detecting foci of multifocal, multicentric breast cancer in Fatty and dense breasts using the whole-breast pathologic examination as a gold standard.

Authors:  Francesco Sardanelli; Gian M Giuseppetti; Pietro Panizza; Massimo Bazzocchi; Alfonso Fausto; Giovanni Simonetti; Vincenzo Lattanzio; Alessandro Del Maschio
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  The comparative sensitivity of mammography and ultrasound in women with breast symptoms: an age-specific analysis.

Authors:  N Houssami; S Ciatto; L Irwig; J M Simpson; P Macaskill
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 4.380

3.  The influence of knowledge of mammography findings on the accuracy of breast ultrasound in symptomatic women.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Les Irwig; Judy M Simpson; Merran McKessar; Steven Blome; Jennie Noakes
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.431

Review 4.  A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard.

Authors:  Johannes B Reitsma; Anne W S Rutjes; Khalid S Khan; Arri Coomarasamy; Patrick M Bossuyt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-05-17       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Various randomized designs can be used to evaluate medical tests.

Authors:  Jeroen G Lijmer; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2008-10-21       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Evidence-based radiology: why and how?

Authors:  Francesco Sardanelli; Myriam G Hunink; Fiona J Gilbert; Giovanni Di Leo; Gabriel P Krestin
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies.

Authors:  Holger J Schünemann; A Holger J Schünemann; Andrew D Oxman; Jan Brozek; Paul Glasziou; Roman Jaeschke; Gunn E Vist; John W Williams; Regina Kunz; Jonathan Craig; Victor M Montori; Patrick Bossuyt; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-05-17

8.  Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Lorena Gutierrez; Moriel S NessAiver; W Bradford Carter; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Rebecca S Lewis; Olga B Ioffe
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-10-14       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Stefano Ciatto; Petra Macaskill; Sarah J Lord; Ruth M Warren; J Michael Dixon; Les Irwig
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-05-12       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Constantine Gatsonis; Christiane K Kuhl; R Edward Hendrick; Etta D Pisano; Lucy Hanna; Sue Peacock; Stanley F Smazal; Daniel D Maki; Thomas B Julian; Elizabeth R DePeri; David A Bluemke; Mitchell D Schnall
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-03-28       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  1 in total

1.  Advanced diagnostic breast cancer imaging: variation and patterns of care in Washington state.

Authors:  Laura S Gold; Diana S M Buist; Elizabeth T Loggers; Ruth Etzioni; Larry Kessler; Scott D Ramsey; Sean D Sullivan
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 3.840

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.