Literature DB >> 9867892

Evaluating bias and variability in diagnostic test reports.

W R Mower1.   

Abstract

Diagnostic testing is an important component of modern medical care. Unfortunately, many diagnostic tests are not rigorously evaluated before general application. Studies examining test characteristics often have methodologic flaws that impair their ability to provide reliable information on test performance. These flaws can introduce systematic nonrandom errors (biases) that distort measures of test accuracy. Other design errors can make it difficult to generalize the results of individual studies. These problems may enhance the apparent performance of poor tests while obscuring the performance of good tests, and they may result in the widespread use of tests with uncertain or limited efficacy. This article explores the ways in which studies of diagnostic test efficacy can be affected by bias and variability.

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 9867892     DOI: 10.1016/s0196-0644(99)70422-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Emerg Med        ISSN: 0196-0644            Impact factor:   5.721


  28 in total

1.  Consensus versus disagreement in imaging research: a case study using the LIDC database.

Authors:  Dmitriy Zinovev; Yujie Duo; Daniela S Raicu; Jacob Furst; Samuel G Armato
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Four sensitive screening tools to detect cognitive dysfunction in geriatric emergency department patients: brief Alzheimer's Screen, Short Blessed Test, Ottawa 3DY, and the caregiver-completed AD8.

Authors:  Christopher R Carpenter; Elizabeth R Bassett; Grant M Fischer; Jonathan Shirshekan; James E Galvin; John C Morris
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 3.451

3.  Emergency Ultrasound Literature and Adherence to Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Criteria.

Authors:  Molly Thiessen; Jody A Vogel; Richard L Byyny; Emily Hopkins; Jason S Haukoos; John L Kendall; Stacy A Trent
Journal:  J Emerg Med       Date:  2019-11-07       Impact factor: 1.484

Review 4.  Diagnostic performance of major depression disorder case-finding instruments used among mothers of young children in the United States: A systematic review.

Authors:  Arthur H Owora; Hélène Carabin; Jessica Reese; Tabitha Garwe
Journal:  J Affect Disord       Date:  2016-05-13       Impact factor: 4.839

5.  A new method to address verification bias in studies of clinical screening tests: cervical cancer screening assays as an example.

Authors:  Xiaonan Xue; Mimi Y Kim; Philip E Castle; Howard D Strickler
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2013-12-12       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Clinical usefulness of pit patterns for detecting colonic lesions requiring surgical treatment.

Authors:  Yasutoshi Kobayashi; Shin-Ei Kudo; Hideyuki Miyachi; Toshihisa Hosoya; Nobunao Ikehara; Kazuo Ohtsuka; Hiroshi Kashida; Shigeharu Hamatani; Shiro Hinotsu; Koji Kawakami
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2011-05-24       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  The association between infantile postural asymmetry and unsettled behaviour in babies.

Authors:  Julie Ellwood; Michael Ford; Alf Nicholson
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 3.183

8.  Standard 1.5-T MRI of endometrial carcinomas: modest agreement between radiologists.

Authors:  Ingfrid S Haldorsen; Jenny A Husby; Henrica M J Werner; Inger J Magnussen; Jarle Rørvik; Harald Helland; Jone Trovik; Øyvind O Salvesen; Ansgar Espeland; Helga B Salvesen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Incidental colonic 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake: do we need colonoscopy for patients with focal uptake confined to the left-sided colon?

Authors:  Changhyun Lee; Seong-Joon Koh; Ji Won Kim; Kook Lae Lee; Jong Pil Im; Sang Gyun Kim; Joo Sung Kim; Hyun Chae Jung; Byeong Gwan Kim
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2012-08-11       Impact factor: 3.199

10.  Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in the differential diagnosis of early-onset dementia: a prospective, community-based study.

Authors:  Peter K Panegyres; Jeffrey M Rogers; Michael McCarthy; Andrew Campbell; Jing Shan Wu
Journal:  BMC Neurol       Date:  2009-08-12       Impact factor: 2.474

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.