Literature DB >> 3114858

Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests.

C B Begg.   

Abstract

Diagnostic tests are traditionally characterized by simple measures of efficacy such as the sensitivity and the specificity. These measures, though widely recognized and easy to understand, are subject to definitional arbitrariness. Moreover, studies constructed to estimate the sensitivity and specificity are susceptible to a variety of biases. In this paper the various potential problems are described with reference to examples from the diagnostic literature. These difficulties have implications for the design of diagnostic test evaluations, and the choice of suitable measures of test efficacy.

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3114858     DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780060402

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  68 in total

Review 1.  Diagnosis and general practice.

Authors:  N Summerton
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Assessing diagnostic and screening tests: Part 2. How to use the research literature on diagnosis.

Authors:  R Gilbert; S Logan; V A Moyer; E J Elliott
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  2001-07

3.  In search of childhood asthma: questionnaire, tests of bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and clinical evaluation.

Authors:  S T Remes; J Pekkanen; K Remes; R O Salonen; M Korppi
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 9.139

Review 4.  Evaluation of diagnostic procedures.

Authors:  J André Knottnerus; Chris van Weel; Jean W M Muris
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-02-23

Review 5.  Designing studies to ensure that estimates of test accuracy are transferable.

Authors:  Les Irwig; Patrick Bossuyt; Paul Glasziou; Constantine Gatsonis; Jeroen Lijmer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-03-16

6.  Systematic reviews of diagnostic research. Considerations about assessment and incorporation of methodological quality.

Authors:  H C de Vet; T van der Weijden; J W Muris; J Heyrman; F Buntinx; J A Knottnerus
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 8.082

Review 7.  The use of "overall accuracy" to evaluate the validity of screening or diagnostic tests.

Authors:  Anthony J Alberg; Ji Wan Park; Brant W Hager; Malcolm V Brock; Marie Diener-West
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 8.  Effect of verification bias on the sensitivity of fecal occult blood testing: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Alan S Rosman; Mark A Korsten
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-05-25       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 9.  New approaches to enhance the accuracy of the diagnosis of reflux disease.

Authors:  P Moayyedi; J Duffy; B Delaney
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 23.059

10.  Non-acute abdominal complaints in general practice: diagnostic value of signs and symptoms.

Authors:  J W Muris; R Starmans; G H Fijten; H F Crebolder; H J Schouten; J A Knottnerus
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 5.386

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.