Imaging technology and practice assessments: Diagnostic performance, clinical relevance, and generalizability in a changing environment

Radiology

Volumn 233, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 309-312

  Gur, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Computers, diagnostic aid; Diagnostic radiology, observer performance; Editorials; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; EDITORIAL; HEALTH CARE; IMAGING SYSTEM; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIODIAGNOSIS;

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; TECHNOLOGY, RADIOLOGIC; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 7044235747     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2332040563     Document Type: Editorial

References (11)

1. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 1991; 11:88-94.
2. Metz CE. Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. Invest Radiol 1989; 24:234-245.
3. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 1992; 27:723-731.
4. Roe CA, Metz CE. Variance-component modeling in the analysis of receiver operating characteristic index estimates. Acad Radiol 1997; 4:587-600.
5. Beiden SV, Wagner RF, Campbell G. Components-of-variance models and multiple-bootstrap experiments: an alternative method for random-effects, receiver operating characteristic analysis. Acad Radiol 2000; 7:341-349.
6. Wagner RF, Beiden SV, Campbell G, Metz CE, Sacks WM. Assessment of medical imaging and computer-assist systems: lessons from recent experience. Acad Radiol 2002; 9:1264-1277.
7. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, et al. Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:185-190.
8. Rutter CM, Taplin S. Assessing mammographers' accuracy: a comparison of clinical and test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53:443-450.
9. Gur D, Rockette HE, Armfield DR, et al. Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment. Radiology 2003; 228:10-14.
10. Gur D, Rockette HE, Warfel T, Lacomis JM, Fuhrman CR. From the laboratory to the clinic: the "prevalence effect." Acad Radiol 2003; 10:1324-1326.
11. Zheng B, Ganott MA, Britton CA, et al. Soft-copy mammographic readings with different computer-assisted detection cuing environments: preliminary findings. Radiology 2001; 221:633-640.