The identification of bias in studies of the diagnostic performance of imaging modalities

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 70, Issue OCT., 1997, Pages 1028-1035

  Kelly, S ^a   Berry, E ^a   Roderick, P ^b   Harris, K M ^c   Cullingworth, J ^c   Gathercole, L ^c   Hutton, J ^d   Smith, M A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b SOUTHAMPTON GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c LEEDS GENERAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

^d MEDTAP International Inc   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PATIENT SELECTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW;

EID: 0030658884     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.70.838.9404207     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Mulrow CD, Linn WD, Gaul MK, Pugh JA. Assessing quality of a diagnostic test evaluation. J Gen Intern Med 1989;4:288-95.
2. Irwig L, Tosteson ANA, Gatsonis C, Lau J, Colditz G, Chalmers TC, et al. Guidelines for metaanalyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med 1994;120:667-76.
3. Fineberg HV, Bauman R, Sosman M. Computerized cranial tomography: effect on diagnostic and therapeutic plans. JAMA 1977;238:224-7.
4. Mackenzie R, Dixon AK. Review: Measuring the effects of imaging: an evaluative framework. Clin Radiol 1995;50:513-8.
5. Kent DL, Larson EB. Disease, level of impact and quality of research methods: Three dimensions of clinical efficacy assessment applied to magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 1992;27:245-54.
6. Thornbury JR. Clinical efficacy of diagnostic imaging: Love it or leave it. AJR 1994;162:1-8.
7. Feinstein AR. Clinical Biostatistics XXXI: On the sensitivity, specificity and discrimination of diagnostic tests. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1975;17:104-16.
8. McMaster University Health Sciences Centre. How to read clinical journals: III. To learn the clinical course and prognosis of disease. Can Med Assoc J 1981;124:869-72.
9. McMaster University Health Sciences Centre. How to read clinical journals: V. To distinguish useful from useless or even harmful therapy. Can Med Asoc J 1981;124:1156-62.
10. Grimm H, Hamper K, Binmoeller KF, Soehendra N. Enlarged lymph nodes: Malignant or not? Endoscopy 1992;24 (Suppl 1):320-3.
11. Hordijk ML, Kok TC, Wilson JHP, Mulder AH. Assessment of response of eosphageal carcinoma to induction chemotherapy. Endoscopy 1993;25:592-6.
12. Ransohoff DF, Feinstein AR. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med 1978;299:926-30.
13. Irwig L, Macaskill P, Glasziou P, Fahey M. Metaanalytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:119-30.
14. Begg CB. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 1987;6:411-23.
15. Begg CB, Greenes RA. Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Biometrics 1983;39:207-15.
16. Choi BCK. Sensitivity and specificity of a single diagnostic test in the presence of work-up bias. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:581-6.
17. Greenes RA, Begg CB. Assessment of diagnostic technologies: Methodology for unbiased estimation from samples of selectively verified patients. Invest Radiol 1985;20:751-6.
18. Black WC, Welch HG. Advances in diagnostic imaging and overestimations of disease prevalence and the benefits of therapy. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1237-43.
19. Royal HD. Technology assessment: Scientific challenges. AJR 1994;163:503-7.
20. Metz C. ROC methodology in radiologie imaging. Invest Radiol 1986;21:720-33.
21. Kent DL, Larson EB. Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain and spine. Is clinical efficacy established after the first decade? Ann Intern Med 1988;108:402-24.
22. Cochrane Methods Working Group on Systematic Review of Screening and Diagnostic Tests. Recommended methods, updated 6 June 1996. http://som.flinders.edu.au/cochrane/.