Literature DB >> 3357976

Assessment of radiologic tests: control of bias and other design considerations.

C B Begg1, B J McNeil.   

Abstract

The assessment of new radiologic tests can be seriously hampered by the presence of systematic bias. Biases can arise from incomplete verification of the sample population; omission of uninterpretable tests; absence of a definitive reference test; extraneous factors affecting interpretation; and extrapolation factors including variations in test efficacy among patients, hospitals, and the radiologists who interpret the tests. The authors review these biases that affect the results of efficacy studies and provide guidelines to avoid these problems.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3357976     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.167.2.3357976

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  31 in total

1.  Do we need randomised trials to evaluate diagnostic procedures? Against.

Authors:  Peter E Valk
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2003-12-03       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 2.  ROC analysis in medical imaging: a tutorial review of the literature.

Authors:  Charles E Metz
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2007-10-27

Review 3.  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

4.  Occupation-specific screening for future sickness absence: criterion validity of the trucker strain monitor (TSM).

Authors:  Einar M De Croon; Roland W B Blonk; Judith K Sluiter; Monique H W Frings-Dresen
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2004-11-27       Impact factor: 3.015

Review 5.  Image-guided tumor ablation: standardization of terminology and reporting criteria.

Authors:  S Nahum Goldberg; Clement J Grassi; John F Cardella; J William Charboneau; Gerald D Dodd; Damian E Dupuy; Debra Gervais; Alice R Gillams; Robert A Kane; Fred T Lee; Tito Livraghi; John McGahan; David A Phillips; Hyunchul Rhim; Stuart G Silverman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-04-21       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  Are somatosensory evoked potentials the best predictor of outcome after severe brain injury? A systematic review.

Authors:  B G Carter; W Butt
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2005-04-22       Impact factor: 17.440

7.  Does serum procalcitonin have a role in evaluating the severity of acute pancreatitis? A question revisited.

Authors:  Sanjay Purkayastha; Andre Chow; Thanos Athanasiou; Apostolos Cambaroudis; Sukhmeet Panesar; James Kinross; Paris Tekkis; Ara Darzi
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Experimental design and data analysis in receiver operating characteristic studies: lessons learned from reports in radiology from 1997 to 2006.

Authors:  Junji Shiraishi; Lorenzo L Pesce; Charles E Metz; Kunio Doi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  Clinical efficacy of imaging modalities in the diagnosis of low-back pain disorders.

Authors:  N Boos; P H Lander
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 10.  Outcomes research and cost-effectiveness analysis in radiology.

Authors:  M G Hunink
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.