Accuracy assessments of quantitative diagnostic tests for clinical research

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Volumn 47, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 153-158

  Atiqi, R ^a   van Iersel, C ^a   Cleophas, T J ^a,b,c  

^a ALBERT SCHWEITZER HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^b European College of Pharmaceutical Medicine   (France)

^c Department Statistics and Circulation ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Accuracy; Altman Bland plots; Correlation coefficient; Intraclass correlation; Least squares; Linear regression analysis; Paired t tests; Quantitative diagnostic tests; Residual variances

Indexed keywords

ANGIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; HEART VOLUME; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STUDENT T TEST; VALIDATION STUDY; VALIDITY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; HUMAN; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; ROC CURVE; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS;

DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; REFERENCE STANDARDS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROC CURVE;

EID: 65549160588     PISSN: 09461965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5414/CPP47153     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Anonymous. The quality of diagnostic tests statement, the CONSORT statement; 2007. www.consort-statement.org.
2. Barnett DV. Simultaneous pairwise linear structural relationships. Biometrics. 1969; 28: 129-142.
3. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; i: 307-310.
4. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig JG, Moher D, Rennie D, De Vet HC, 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.
5. Delong ER, Delong DM. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operated characteristic curves; a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988; 44: 837-845.
6. Guidelines for global application developed by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. www.techstreet.com.
7. Law J, Devault A. Methods for comparison studies for quantitative nucleic acids assays. Roche Molecular Systems. New York: Roche; 2003. p. 2541-2547.
8. Linnet K. Performance of Deming regression analysis in case of misspecified analytical error in method comparison studies. Clin Chem. 1998; 44: 1024-1031.
9. McGee WT, Horswell JL, Calderon J, Janvier G, Van Severen T, Van den Berghe G, Kozikowski L. Validation of a continuous arterial pressure-based cardiac output measurement: a multicenter, prospective trial. Crit Care. 2007; 11 R105: 1-7.
10. Passing H, Bablok W. A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem. 1983; 21: 709-720.
11. Reid MC, Lachs MS, Feinstein AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good. JAMA. 1995; 274: 645-650.
12. Stöckl D, Dewitte K, Thienpont LM. Valdity of linear regression in the method comparison studies: is it limited by the statistical model or the quality of the analytical input data? Clin Chem. 1998; 44: 2340-2346.