A systematic review of computer-assisted diagnosis in diagnostic cancer imaging

European Journal of Radiology

Volumn 81, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Eadie, Leila H ^a   Taylor, Paul ^a   Gibson, Adam P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Computer assisted diagnostic imaging; Computer assisted image interpretation; Computer assisted radiographic image interpretation; Decision making computer assisted; Diagnosis; Early detection of cancer

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84855557868     PISSN: 0720048X     EISSN: 18727727     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.098     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Lusted LB. Logical analysis of roentgen diagnosis. Radiology 1960;74:178-93.
2. Lodwick GS. Radiographic diagnosis and grading of bone tumors with comments on computer evaluation. In: Fifth National Cancer Conference proceedings, Philadelphia: Lippincott. 1965. p. 369-80.
3. Birdwell RL. The preponderance of evidence supports computer-aided detection for screening mammography. Radiology 2009;253:9-16.
4. Goldin JG, Brown MS, Petkovska I. Computer-aided diagnosis in lung nodule assessment. J Thorac Imaging 2008;23:97-104.
5. Doi K. Current status and future potential of computer-aided diagnosis in medical imaging. Br J Radiol 2005;78:s3-19.
6. The Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group. http://srdta. cochrane.org; [accessed 10.09.10].
7. Devillé WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodology 2002;2, 9.
8. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS, et al. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:982-90. (Pubitemid 41316441)
9. Irwig L, Tosteson ANA, Gatsonis C, et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med 1994;120:667-76. (Pubitemid 24106180)
10. Gatsonis CA. Receiver operating characteristic analysis for the evaluation of diagnosis and prediction. Radiology 2009;253:593-6.
11. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, et al. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:1129-35. (Pubitemid 37386338)
12. Bland JM, Kerry SM. Weighted comparison of means. BMJ 1998;316, 129.
13. Littenberg B, Moses LE. Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conflicting reports: a new meta-analytic method. Med Decis Making 1993;13:313-21. (Pubitemid 24013154)
14. Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, et al. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6, 31.
15. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3, 25.
16. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629-34. (Pubitemid 27387172)
17. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 2001;220:781-6. (Pubitemid 32799990)
18. Birdwell RL, Bandodkar P, Ikeda DM. Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting. Radiology 2005;236:451-7. (Pubitemid 41023425)
19. Gromet M. Comparison of computer-aided detection to double reading of screening mammograms. Review of 231, 221 mammograms. AJR 2008;190:854-9. (Pubitemid 351571504)
20. Gur D, Bandos AI, Cohen CS, et al. The "Laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists'performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology 2008;249:47-53.
21. Harbord RM, Whiting P, Sterne JAC, et al. An empirical comparison of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy showed hierarchical models are necessary. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:1095-103.