Estimates of sensitivity and specificity can be biased when reporting the results of the second test in a screening trial conducted in series

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 10, Issue , 2010, Pages

  Ringham, Brandy M ^a   Alonzo, Todd A ^b   Grunwald, Gary K ^a   Glueck, Deborah H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMAN; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; NEOPLASM; PREVALENCE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; PREVALENCE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 76749154172     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-3     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Breast Cancer: Statistics, Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention Homepage. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/
2. Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40-49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. RE Hendrick, J Natl Cancer I Mono 1997 22 87 92
3. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screenfilm mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. JM Lewin RE Hendrick CJ D'Orsi PK Isaacs LJ Moss A Karellas GA Sisney CC Kuni GR Cutter, Radiology 2001 218 873-880 11230669
4. Ten-year risk of false positive screening on mammograms and clinical breast examinations. JG Elmore MB Barton VM Moceri S Polk PJ Arena SW Fletcher, N Engl J Med 1998 338 1089 1096 10.1056/NEJM199804163381601. 9545356
5. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. CD Lehman C Gatsonis CK Kuhl RE Hendrick ED Pisano L Hanna S Peacock SF Smazal DD Maki TB Julian ER DePeri DA Bluemke MD Schnall for the ACRIN Trial 6667 Investigators Group, N Engl J Med 2007 356 1295 1303 10.1056/NEJMoa065447 17392300 (Pubitemid 46513295)
6. MR imaging findings in the contralateral breast of women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. L Liberman EA Morris CM Kim JB Kaplan AF Abramson JH Menell KJ Van Zee DD Dershaw, Am J Roentgenol 2003 180 333 341 (Pubitemid 36135009)
7. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of a sequence of tests. ML Thompson, Biostatistics 2003 4 341 351 10.1093/biostatistics/4.3.341 12925502
8. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. ED Pisano C Gatsonis E Hendrick M Yaffe JK Baum S Acharyya EF Conant LL Fajardo L Bassett C D'Orsi R Jong M Rebner Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group, N Engl J Med 2005 353 1773 1783 10.1056/NEJMoa052911 16169887
9. Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods. AWS Rutjes JB Reitsma A Coomarasamy KS Khan PMM Bossuyt, Health Technol Assess 2007 11 50 ii, ix-51
10. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. P Whiting AWS Rutjes JB Reitsma AS Glas PMM Bossuyt J Kleijnen, Ann Intern Med 2004 140 189 203 14757617
11. MS Pepe, The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction New York: Oxford University Press 2003
12. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. DA Bluemke CA Gatsonis MH Chen, J Am Med Assoc 2004 292 2735 2742 10.1001/jama.292.22.2735 (Pubitemid 39628252)
13. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR Imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. WA Berg L Gutierrez MS NessAiver WB Carter M Bhargavan RS Lewis OB Ioffe, Radiology 2004 233 830 849 10.1148/radiol.2333031484 15486214
14. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity in a multistage screen for medical diagnosis. VM Chinchilli, Biometrics 1983 39 333 340 10.2307/2531006
15. On dependent repeated screening tests. TS Lau, Biometrics 1991 47 77 86 10.2307/2532497 2049515
16. Assessing the gain in diagnostic performance when combining two diagnostic tests. P Macaskill SD Walter L Irwig EL Franco, Stat Med 2002 21 2527 2546 10.1002/sim.1227 12205697
17. Mammography, Breast Ultrasound, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Surveillance of Women at High Familial Risk for Breast Cancer. CK Kuhl S Schrading CC Leutner N Morakkabati-Spitz E Wardelmann R Fimmers W Kuhn H Schild, J Clin Oncol 2005 23 8469 8476 10.1200/JCO.2004.00.4960 16293877
18. Bias in trials comparing paired continuous tests can cause researchers to choose the wrong screening modality. DH Glueck MM Lamb CI O'Donnell BM Ringham JT Brinton KE Muller JM Lewin TA Alonzo ED Pisano, BMC Med Res Methodol 2009 9 4 10.1186/1471-2288-9-4 19154609