Special Topics III: Bias

Radiology

Volumn 229, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 617-621

  Obuchowski, Nancy A ^a  

^a LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Statistical analysis

Indexed keywords

BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DATA ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; HUMAN; LUNG CANCER; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIODIAGNOSIS; RANDOMIZATION; REVIEW; STANDARD;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; REFERENCE STANDARDS; SAMPLING STUDIES; SELECTION BIAS;

EID: 0344584824     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2293010899     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Altman DG, Bland JM. Generalisation and extrapolation. BMJ 1998; 317:409-410. Available at: www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/317/7155/409. Accessed September 26, 2003.
2. Altman DG, Bland JM. How to randomise. BMJ 1999; 319:703-704. Available at: www.bmj.com/cgi/content/ful/319/7211 /703. Accessed September 26, 2003.
3. Sox H, Stern S, Owens D, Abrams HL. Assessment of diagnostic technology in health care: rationale, methods, problems, and directions. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989.
4. Ransohoff DF, Feinstein AR. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med 1978; 299:926-930.
5. Beam CA, Baker ME, Paine SS, Sostman HD, Sullivan DC. Answering unanswered questions: proposal for a shared resource in clinical diagnostic radiology research. Radiology 1992; 183:619-620.
6. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists: findings from a national sample. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156:209-213.
7. Valenstein PN. Evaluating diagnostic tests with imperfect standards. Am J Clin Pathol 1990; 93:252-258.
8. Metz CE. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 1978; 8:283-298.
9. Thornbury JR, Fryback DG, Turski PA, et al. Disk-caused nerve compression in patients with acute low-back pain: diagnosis with MR, CT myelography, and plain CT. Radiology 1993; 186:731-738.
10. Hui SL, Zhou XH. Evaluation of diagnostic tests without gold standards. Stat Methods Med Res 1998; 7:354-370.
11. Begg CB. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 1987; 6:411-423.
12. Begg CB, McNeil BJ. Assessment of radiologic tests, control of bias and other design considerations. Radiology 1988; 167:565-569.
13. Black WC. How to evaluate the radiology literature. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990; 154:17-22.
14. Zhou XH. Correcting for verification bias in studies of a diagnostic test's accuracy. Stat Methods Med Res 1998; 7:337-353.
15. Metz CE. Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiologic ROC studies. Invest Radiol 1989; 24: 234-245.
16. Egglin TK, Feinstein AR. Context bias: a problem in diagnostic radiology. JAMA 1996; 276:1752-1755.
17. Begg CB, Greenes RA, Iglewicz B. The influence of uninterpretability on the assessment of diagnostic tests. J Chronic Dis 1986; 39:575-584.
18. Poynard T, Chaput JC, Etienne JP. Relations between effectiveness of a diagnostic test, prevalence of the disease, and percentages of uninterpretable results: an example in the diagnosis of jaundice. Med Decis Making 1982; 2:285-297.
19. Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical analysis with missing data. New York, NY: Wiley, 1987.