Roaming through methodology. XXXII. False test results;Dwalingen in de methodologie. XXXII. Foute testuitslagen

Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde

Volumn 145, Issue 19, 2001, Pages 906-908

  Van Der Weijden, T ^a   Van Den Akker, M ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; HUMAN; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS;

EID: 0035849321     PISSN: 00282162     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Jongh TOH de. Diagnostische instrumenten. In: Grundmeijer HGLM, Reenders K, Rutten GEHM, redacteuren. Het geneeskundig proces. Van klacht naar therapie. Maarssen: Elsevier; 1999.
2. Stewart-Brown S, Farmer A. Screening could seriously damage your health. Decisions to screen must take account of the social and psychological costs. BMJ 1997;314:533-4.
3. Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, Polk S, Arena PJ, Fletcher SW. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 1998;338:1089-96.
4. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Sox HC, Fischhoff B, Welch HG. US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey. BMJ 2000; 320:1635-40.
5. Bachorik PS, Ross JW. National Cholesterol Education Program recommendations for measurement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: executive summary. The National Cholesterol Education Program Working Group on Lipoprotein Measurement. Clin Chem 1995;41:1414-20.
6. Renshaw AA. A practical problem with calculating the false-negative rate of Papanicolaou smear interpretation by rescreening negative cases alone. Cancer 1999;87:351-3.
7. Petticrew MP, Sowden AJ, Lister-Sharp D, Wright K. False-negative results in screening programmes: systematic review of impact and implications. Health Technol Assess 2000;4:1-120.
8. Moons KGM, Graaf Y van der. Evaluatie van de toegevoegde waarde van diagnostische tests. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2000;144:1256-61.
9. Bossuyt PMM, Lijmer JG, Mol BW. Dwalingen in de methodologie. X. Het toetsen van diagnostiek. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1998;142: 2345-7.
10. Suojanen JN. False false positive rates [letter]. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:131.
11. Nagy GK. False negative rate. A misnomer, misunderstood and misused. Acta Cytol 1997;41:778-80.
12. Tijmstra Tj, Bajema C. 'Je zult die ene maar zijn': risicobeleving en keuzegedrag rond medische technologie. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1990;134:1884-5.