Literature DB >> 3090089

The influence of uninterpretability on the assessment of diagnostic tests.

C B Begg, R A Greenes, B Iglewicz.   

Abstract

A frequent problem faced by physicians utilizing diagnostic tests is the occurrence of uninterpretable test results. Such results, if they occur commonly, can seriously impair the diagnostic performance of the test. Moreover, in assessing the characteristics of the test, i.e. sensitivity, specificity, etc. failure to consider the impact of uninterpretability will artificially inflate the test characteristics. In this paper we explore the implications of this issue. We observe that a relevant factor is the potential repeatability of the test, i.e. whether the cause of uninterpretability is a transient phenomenon or an inherent property of the subject. We distinguish uninterpretable results, in which no result is obtained, from indeterminate results, in which the result is equivocal, or for which predisposing concomitant factors limit the interpretability of the result. Our results demonstrate that the naive approach of ignoring uninterpretable results in test assessments may indeed be unbiased in certain circumstances. However, if the cause of uninterpretability is related to disease status or to the potentially observable test result, then this approach will lead to bias. In either case, the frequency of uninterpretability is an important consideration in the cost-effectiveness of the test.

Mesh:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3090089     DOI: 10.1016/0021-9681(86)90182-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chronic Dis        ISSN: 0021-9681


  9 in total

Review 1.  [Methodology of diagnostic validation studies. Errors in planning and analysis].

Authors:  K Jensen; U Abel
Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)       Date:  1999-09-15

2.  Incidental focal solid liver lesions: diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and MR imaging.

Authors:  Michael Soussan; Christophe Aubé; Stéphane Bahrami; Jérôme Boursier; Dominique Charles Valla; Valérie Vilgrain
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Assessing quality of a diagnostic test evaluation.

Authors:  C D Mulrow; W D Linn; M K Gaul; J A Pugh
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1989 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Methodologic standards for diagnostic test assessment studies.

Authors:  C B Begg
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1988 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Influence of heart rate on diagnostic accuracy and image quality of 16-slice CT coronary angiography: comparison of multisegment and halfscan reconstruction approaches.

Authors:  Marc Dewey; Florian Teige; Michael Laule; Bernd Hamm
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-07-17       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  A trivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic studies accounting for prevalence and non-evaluable subjects: re-evaluation of the meta-analysis of coronary CT angiography studies.

Authors:  Xiaoye Ma; Muhammad Fareed K Suri; Haitao Chu
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Jérémie F Cohen; Daniël A Korevaar; Douglas G Altman; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Lotty Hooft; Les Irwig; Deborah Levine; Johannes B Reitsma; Henrica C W de Vet; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-11-14       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  A multinomial quadrivariate D-vine copula mixed model for meta-analysis of diagnostic studies in the presence of non-evaluable subjects.

Authors:  Aristidis K Nikoloulopoulos
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2020-04-23       Impact factor: 3.021

9.  Reporting and Handling of Indeterminate Bone Scan Results in the Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Lars J Petersen; Jesper Strandberg; Louise Stenholt; Martin B Johansen; Helle D Zacho
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2018-01-16
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.