Literature DB >> 3574020

Intermediate, indeterminate, and uninterpretable diagnostic test results.

D L Simel, J R Feussner, E R DeLong, D B Matchar.   

Abstract

Diagnostic tests do not always yield positive or negative results; sometimes the results are intermediate, indeterminate, or uninterpretable. No consensus exists for the incorporation of such results into data assessment. Conventional Bayesian analysis leads investigators to either exclude patients with non-positive, non-negative results from their studies or categorize such results into inappropriate cells of the standard four-cell decision matrix. The authors propose a standardized method for reporting results in studies dealing with diagnostic test use and discuss how researchers should expand the four-cell matrix to six cells when non-positive, non-negative results occur. They suggest that the six-cell matrix with new operational definitions of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and test yield should be adopted routinely. In addition, they define the different types of non-positive, non-negative results and demonstrate how clinicians can use tree-structured decision analysis from the six-cell matrix. While their method does not solve all problems posed by non-positive, non-negative results, it does suggest a standard method for reporting these results and utilizing all the data in decision making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3574020     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8700700208

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  38 in total

1.  Intra- and interlaboratory reproducibility of an ELISA serological test for Lyme disease.

Authors:  M C Tammemagi; J W Frank; M Leblanc; H Artsob
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis       Date:  1995-03

2.  Some methodological questions concerning receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis as a method for assessing image quality in radiology.

Authors:  M B Harrington
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in ophthalmic journals.

Authors:  M A R Siddiqui; A Azuara-Blanco; J Burr
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.638

4.  Is dual-phase C-arm CBCT sufficiently accurate for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer liver metastasis during liver intra-arterial treatment?

Authors:  Olivier Pellerin; Helena Pereira; Claire Van Ngoc Ty; Nadia Moussa; Costantino Del Giudice; Simon Pernot; Carole Déan; Gilles Chatellier; Marc Sapoval
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Beyond SpPIN and SnNOUT: Considerations with Dichotomous Tests During Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy.

Authors:  Eric J Hegedus; Ben Stern
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2009

6.  The diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of pediatric renal tumor biopsy: Report of the UK experience in the SIOP UK WT 2001 trial.

Authors:  Thomas J Jackson; Richard D Williams; Jesper Brok; Tanzina Chowdhury; Milind Ronghe; Mark Powis; Kathy Pritchard-Jones; Gordan M Vujanić
Journal:  Pediatr Blood Cancer       Date:  2019-02-13       Impact factor: 3.167

7.  Psychometric properties and osteoprotective behaviors among type 2 diabetic patients: osteoporosis self-efficacy scale Malay version (OSES-M).

Authors:  S A Abdulameer; S A Syed Sulaiman; M A Hassali; K Subramaniam; M N Sahib
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2012-07-13       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 8.  Diagnostic accuracy and utility of coronary CT angiography with consideration of unevaluable results: A systematic review and multivariate Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis with intention to diagnose.

Authors:  Jan Menke; Jörg Kowalski
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-05-20       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Comparison of PET-CT and conventional imaging in staging pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma.

Authors:  Sara M Federico; Sheri L Spunt; Matthew J Krasin; Catherine A Billup; Jianrong Wu; Barry Shulkin; Gerald Mandell; M Beth McCarville
Journal:  Pediatr Blood Cancer       Date:  2012-12-19       Impact factor: 3.167

10.  The STARD statement for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: application to the history and physical examination.

Authors:  David L Simel; Drummond Rennie; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-03-18       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.