Literature DB >> 31302605

Recognising Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Tests Part 1: Patient Selection.

M Kennedy Hall1, Bory Kea2, Ralph Wang3.   

Abstract

In this two-part series on sources of bias in studies of diagnostic test performance, we outline common errors and optimal conditions during three study phases: patient selection, interpretation of the index test and disease verification by a gold standard. Here in part 1, biases associated with suboptimal participant selection are discussed through the lens of partial verification bias and spectrum bias, both of which increase the proportion of participants who are the 'sickest of the sick' or the 'wellest of the well.' Especially through retrospective methodology, partial verification introduces bias by including patients who are test positive by a gold standard, since patients with a positive index test are more likely to go on to further gold standard testing. Spectrum bias is frequently introduced through case-control design, dropping of indeterminate results or convenience sampling. After reading part 1, the informed clinician should be better able to judge the quality of a diagnostic test study, its inherent limitations and whether its results could be generalisable to their practice. Part 2 will describe how interpretation of the index test and disease verification by a gold standard can contribute to diagnostic test bias. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  imaging; research, methods; statistics; ultrasound

Year:  2019        PMID: 31302605      PMCID: PMC6738935          DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2019-208446

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Med J        ISSN: 1472-0205            Impact factor:   2.740


  6 in total

1.  Prevalence of Pulmonary Embolism in Emergency Department Patients With Suspected COVID-19: The Truth Remains Unknown.

Authors:  Robert R Ehrman; Jonathan Collins; Nicholas Harrison
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2020-10-16       Impact factor: 5.221

2.  Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Diagnostic Tests for Border Screening During the Very Early Phase of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Pearleen Ee Yong Chua; Sylvia Xiao Wei Gwee; Min Xian Wang; Hao Gui; Junxiong Pang
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-02-14

3.  Clinical Value of Surveillance 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT for Detecting Unsuspected Recurrence or Second Primary Cancer in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer after Curative Therapy.

Authors:  Chae Hong Lim; Soo Bin Park; Hong Kwan Kim; Yong Soo Choi; Jhingook Kim; Yong Chan Ahn; Myung-Ju Ahn; Joon Young Choi
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-27       Impact factor: 6.639

4.  Diagnostic accuracy of on-site coronary computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve in the diagnosis of stable coronary artery disease.

Authors:  J Peper; J Schaap; B J W M Rensing; J C Kelder; M J Swaans
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2021-12-15       Impact factor: 2.380

Review 5.  Requirements and Study Designs for U.S. Regulatory Approval of Influenza Home Tests.

Authors:  Tony Yang; Larry G Kessler; Matthew J Thompson; Barry R Lutz
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2021-12-15       Impact factor: 11.677

6.  Evaluation of the IgG antibody response to SARS CoV-2 infection and performance of a lateral flow immunoassay: cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis over 11 months.

Authors:  Louise J Robertson; Julie S Moore; Kevin Blighe; Kok Yew Ng; Nigel Quinn; Fergal Jennings; Gary Warnock; Peter Sharpe; Mark Clarke; Kathryn Maguire; Sharon Rainey; Ruth K Price; William P Burns; Amanda M Kowalczyk; Agnes Awuah; Sara E McNamee; Gayle E Wallace; David Hunter; Steve Sager; Connie Chao Shern; M Andrew Nesbit; James A D McLaughlin; Tara Moore
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-06-29       Impact factor: 2.692

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.