Compliance with methodological standards when evaluating ophthalmic diagnostic tests

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 40, Issue 8, 1999, Pages 1650-1657

  Harper, Robert ^a   Reeves, Barnaby ^b  

^a MANCHESTER ROYAL EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EYE DISEASE; GLAUCOMA; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, OPHTHALMOLOGICAL; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; OBSERVER VARIATION; OPHTHALMOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0033031736     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Moseley MJ, Hill AR. Contrast sensitivity testing in clinical practice. Br J Ophthalmol. 1994;78:795-797.
2. Arden GB, Jacobson JJ. A simple grating test for contrast sensitivity: preliminary results indicate value for screening in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1978;17:23-32.
3. Ginsberg AP. A new contrast sensitivity vision test chart. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1984;61:403-407.
4. Della Sala S, Bertoni G, Somazzi L, Stubbe F, Wilkins AJ. Impaired contrast sensitivity in diabetic patients with and without retinopathy: a new technique for rapid assessment. Br J Ophtbalmol. 1985;69:136-142.
5. Decks JJ, Morris JM. Evaluating diagnostic tests. Obstet Gynaecol. In press.
6. Reid MC, Lachs MS, Feinstein AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research: getting better but still not good. JAMA. 1995;274:645-651.
7. Ransohoff DF, Feinstein AR. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med. 1978;299: 926-930.
8. Cooper LS, Chalmers TC, McCally M, Berrier J, Sacks HS. The poor quality of early evaluations of magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA. 1988;259:3277-3280.
9. Arroll B, Schechter MT, Sheps SB. The assessment of diagnostic tests: a comparison of medical literature in 1982 and 1985. J Gen Intern Med. 1988;3:443-447.
10. Jaeschke A, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, for the Evidence-based Medicine Working Group. Users' guides to the medical literature, III: how to use an article about a diagnostic test, A: are the results of the study valid? JAMA. 1994;271:389-391.
11. Jaeschke A, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, for the Evidence-based Medicine Working Group. Users' guides to the medical literature, III: how to use an article about a diagnostic test, B: what are the results and will they help me in caring for patients? JAMA. 1994;271:703-707.
12. Ariyasu RG, Lee PP, Linton KP, LaBree LD, Azen SP, Siu AL. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of screening tests for eye conditions in a clinic-based population. Ophthalmology. 1996; 103:1751-1760.
13. Birch E, Williams C, Hunter J, Lapa MC. Random dot stereoacuity in preschool children, J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1991; 34:217-222.
14. Bjerrum KB. Test and symptoms in keratoconjunctivitis sicca and their correlation. Acta Ophthalmologica. 1996;74:436-441.
15. Damato BE, Chyla J, McClure E, Jay JL, Allan JD. A hand-held OKP chart for the screening of glaucoma: preliminary evaluation. Eye. 1990;4:632-637.
16. Daubs J, Crick RP. Epidemiological analysis of the King's College Hospital glaucoma data. Res Clin Forums. 1980;2:41-59.
17. Gardner GG, Keating D, Williamson TH, Elliott AT. Automatic detection of diabetic retinopathy using an artificial neural network: a screening tool. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996;80:940-944.
18. Graham SL, Drance SM, Chauhan BC, et al. Comparison of psychophysical and electrophysiological testing in early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1996;37:2651-2662.
19. Harding SP, Broadbent DM, Neon C, White MC, Vora J. Sensitivity and specificity of photography and direct ophthalmoscopy in screening for sight threatening eye disease: the Liverpool diabetic eye study. BMJ. 1995;311:1131-1135.
20. Harper RA, Hill AR, Reeves BC. Effectiveness of unsupervised oculokinetic perimetry for detecting glaucomatous visual field defects. Ophthalmol Physiol Opt. 1994;14:199-202.
21. Henson DB, Bryson H. Clinical results with the Henson-Hamblin CFS 2000. In: Greve EL, Heijl A, eds. Seventh International Visual Field Symposium. Dordrecht: Dr. W. Junk 1987:233-238.
22. Hodi S. Screening of infants for significant refractive error using videorefraction. Ophthalmol Physiol Opt. 1994;14:310-313.
23. Johnson CA, Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:413-425.
24. Katz J, Tielsch JM, Quigley HA, Javitt J, Witt K, Sommer A Auto mated suprathreshold screening for glaucoma: the Baltimore Eye Survey. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993;34:3271-3277.
25. Mikelberg FS, Parfitt CM, Swindale SL, Graham SL, Drance SM, Gosine R. Ability of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph to detect early glaucomatous visual field loss. J Glaucoma. 1995;4:242-247.
26. Power WJ, Neves RA, Rodriguez A, Pedroza-Seres M, Foster CS. The value of combined serum angiotensin-converting enzyme and gallium scan in diagnosing ocular sarcoidosis. Ophthalmology. 1995;102:2007-2011.
27. Smolek MK, Klyce SD. Current keratoconus detection methods compared with a neural network approach. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:2290-2299.
28. Sommer A, Cheryl Enger MS, Witt K. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with automated threshold perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 1987;103:681-684.
29. Sponsel WE, Ritch R, Stamper R, et al. Prevent blindness America visual field screening study. Am J Ophthalmol 1995; 120:699-708.
30. Tielsch JM, Katz J, Singh K, et al. A population-based evaluation of glaucoma screening: The Baltimore Eye Survey. Am J Epidemiol. 1991;134:1102-1110.
31. Xu KP, Yagi Y, Toda I, Tsubota K. Tear function index: a new measure of dry eye. Arch Ophthalmol. 1995;113:84-88.
32. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood, et al. Improving the of quality of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276:637-639.
33. Simel DL, Feussner JR, Delong ER, Matchar DB. Intermediate, indeterminate and uninterpretable diagnostic test results. Meet Decis Making. 1987;7:107-114.
34. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, et al. Assessing the quality of randomised controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of checklists. Control Clin Trials. 1995;16:62-73.
35. Harper R, Reeves B. Reporting of precision for estimates of diagnostic accuracy: a review. BMJ, 1999;318:1322-1323.
36. Harper RA, Reeves BC. Glaucoma screening: the importance of combined test data. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;318:1322-1323.
37. Leibowitz HM, Krueger DE, Maunder LR., et al. The Framingham Eye Study monograph. Surv Ophthalmol. 1980;24(Suppl):335-610.
38. Bengtsson B. The prevalence of glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1981; 65:46-49.
39. David R. Ocular hypertension. In: Cairns J, ed. Glaucoma. London: Grune & Stratton; 1986:551-67.
40. Katz J, Sommer A. Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests. Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106:1252-1254.
41. Holland WW, Stewart S. Screening in heath care. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1990.