Methods and limitations of assessing new noninvasive tests

Circulation

Volumn 117, Issue 20, 2008, Pages 2684-2690

  Hachamovitch, Rory ^a   Carli, Marcelo F Di ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADENOSINE; DIPYRIDAMOLE;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; HUMAN; ISOTOPE LABELING; ISOTOPE TRACING; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; NON INVASIVE PROCEDURE; OBSERVER BIAS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALIDITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; RECALL BIAS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SINGLE PHOTON EMISSION COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY; STRESS ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; THERAPY; VALIDATION PROCESS; CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM EXAMINATION; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; STANDARD; TECHNIQUE; VALIDATION STUDY;

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, CARDIOVASCULAR; HUMANS; METHODS; RESEARCH DESIGN; VALIDATION STUDIES AS TOPIC;

EID: 44449086010     PISSN: 00097322     EISSN: 15244539     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.708586     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Di Carli MF, Hachamovitch R. New technology for non-invasive evaluation of coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2007;115:1464-1480.
2. Berman DS, Hachamovitch R, Shaw LJ, Germano G, Hayes S. Nuclear cardiology. In: Fuster V, Alexander RW, King S, O'Rourke RA, Wellens HJJ, eds. Hurst's The Heart. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies; 2004:525-565.
3. Redberg RF. Evidence, appropriateness, and technology assessment in cardiology: a case study of computed tomography. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26:86-95.
4. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic testing. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:88-94.
5. Hennekens CH, Buring JE. Analysis of epidemiological studies: evaluatingthe role of bias. In: Epidemiology in Medicine. Boston, Mass: Little, Brown and Co; 1987:272-286.
6. Hennekens CH, Buring JE. Analysis of epidemiological studies: evaluating the role of confounding. In: Epidemiology in Medicine. Boston, Mass: Little, Brown and Co; 1987:287-323.
7. Zhou XH, Obuchowski NA, McClish DK. Methods for correcting verification bias. In: Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine. New York, NY: A. John Wiley and Sons; 2002:307-358.
8. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Bossuyt PMM. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:189-202.
9. Hachamovitch R, Hayes S, Friedman J, Cohen I, Berman D. Stress myocardial perfusion SPECT is clinically effective and cost-effective in risk-stratification of patients with a high likelihood of CAD but no known CAD. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:200-208.
10. Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Kiat H, Merz CNB, Cohen I, Friedman JD, Germano G, Van Train K, Diamond GA. Sex-related differences in clinical management after exercise nuclear testing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;26:1457-1464.
11. Hachamovitch R, Shaw L, Berman DS. Methodological considerations in the assessment of noninvasive testing using outcomes research: pitfalls and limitations. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2000;43:215-230.
12. Hennekens CH, Buring JE. Analysis of epidemiological studies: screening. In: Epidemiology in Medicine. Boston: Little, Brown and Co; 1987:327-347.
13. Zhou XH, Obuchowski NA, McClish DK. Measures of diagnostic accuracy. In: Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine. New York: A. John Wiley and Sons; 2002:15-56.
14. Zou KH, O'Malley AJ, Mauri L. Receiver-operator characteristic analysis for evaluating diagnostic tests and predictive models. Circulation. 2007; 115:654-657.
15. Greenland P, LaBree L, Azen SP, Doherty TM, Detrano RC. Coronary artery calcium score combined with Framingham score for risk prediction in asymptomatic individuals. JAMA. 2004;291:210-215.
16. Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios. BMJ. 2004; 329:168-169
17. Roger VL, Pellikka PA, Bell MR, Chow CWH, Bailey KR, Seward JB. Sex and test verification bias: impact on the diagnostic value of exercise echocardiography. Circulation. 1997;95:405- 410.
18. Miller TD, Hodge DO, Christian TF, Milavetz JJ, Baily KR, Gibbons RJ. Effects of adjustment for referral bias on the sensitivity and specificity of single photon emission computed tomography for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Am J Med. 2002;112:290-297.
19. Fleischmann KE, Hunink MG, Kuntz KM, Douglas PS. Exercise echocardiography or exercise SPECT? A meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance. JAMA. 1998;280:913-920.
20. Sox HC. The evaluation of diagnostic tests: principles, problems and new developments. Annu Rev Med. 1996;47:463- 471.
21. Harel O, Zhou X-A. Multiple imputation for correcting verification bias. Stat Med. 2006;25:3769-3786.
22. Kymes SM, Bruns DE, Shaw LJ, Gillespie KN, Fletcher JW. Anatomy of a meta-analysis: a critical review of exercise echocardiography or exercise SPECT imaging. A meta-analysis of diagnostic performance. J Nucl Cardiol. 2000;7:599-615.