Validating diagnostic tests, correct and incorrect methods, new developments

Current Clinical Pharmacology

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 70-76

  Cleophas, Ton J ^a,b   Droogendijk, Jolanda ^a   van Ouwerkerk, Bas M ^a  

^a ALBERT SCHWEITZER HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^b European College of Pharmaceutical Medicine   (France)

Author keywords

Accuracy; Barnett's test; Bland Altman agreement test; Cohen's kappas; Confidence intervals; Continuous ROC curves; Data modeling; Duplicate standard deviation; Intraclass correlation; Precision; Qualitative and quantitative diagnostic tests; Repeatability coefficients; Reproducibility; ROC curves; Sensitivity; Specificity; Validation

Indexed keywords

LOW DENSITY LIPOPROTEIN CHOLESTEROL;

BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; ERYTHROCYTE SEDIMENTATION RATE; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HUMAN; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; PNEUMONIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE DIAGNOSIS; QUANTITATIVE DIAGNOSIS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; ROC CURVE; STANDARD;

DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES; HUMANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REFERENCE STANDARDS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROC CURVE;

EID: 52049109273     PISSN: 15748847     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2174/157488408784293697     Document Type: Review

References (10)

1. Reid MC, Lachs MS, Feinstein AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good. JAMA 1995; 274: 645-50.
2. Anonymous. The quality of diagnostic tests statement, the CONSORT statement. www.consort-statement.org
3. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. for the STARD steering group. Education and Debate. Towards Complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ 2003; 326: 41-44.
4. Morgan TM, Krumholz HM, Lifton RP, Spertus JA. Nonvalidation of reported genetic risk factors for acute coronary syndrome in a large scale replication study. JAMA 2007; 297: 1551-61.
5. Barnett DV. Simultaneous pairwise linear structural relationships. Biometrics 1969; 28: 129-42.
6. Delong ER, Delong DM. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operated characteristic curves; a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988; 44: 837-845.
7. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under curve under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Diag Radiol 1982; 143: 29-36.
8. Lee J, Koh D, Ong CN. Statistical evaluation of agreement between two methods for measuring a quantitative variable. Comput Biol Med 1989; 19: 61-70.
9. Bland JM, Altman DG. Comparing two methods of clinical measurement: a personal history. Int J Epidemiol 1995; 24: s7-s14.
10. Imburt-Bismut F, Messous D, Thibaut V, et al. Intra-laboratory analytical variability of biochemical markers of fibrosis and activity and reference ranges in healthy blood donors. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004; 42: 323-33.