Quantifying the accuracy of a diagnostic test or marker

Clinical Chemistry

Volumn 58, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 1292-1301

  Linnet, Kristian ^a   Bossuyt, Patrick M M ^b   Moons, Karel G M ^c   Reitsma, Johannes B R ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; D DIMER;

CASE CONTROL STUDY; CLINICAL CHEMISTRY; DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EDEMA; EVALUATION; HUMAN; LUNG EMBOLISM; NEOPLASM; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREGNANCY; PROBABILITY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; VALIDATION PROCESS; VALIDITY;

BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; DIAGNOSIS; HUMANS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84865776903     PISSN: 00099147     EISSN: 15308561     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2012.182543     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Linnet K, Boyd JC. Selection and analytical validation of methods - with statistical techniques. In: Burtis C, Ashwood ER, Bruns D, eds. Tietz textbook of clinical chemistry and molecular diagnostics. 5th ed. New York: Elsevier; 2012. p 7-47.
2. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD intiative. Clin Chem 2003;49:1-6.
3. Linnet K. A review on the methodology for assessing diagnostic tests. Clin Chem 1988;34:1379-86.
4. Oudega R, Moons KG, Hoes AW. Ruling out deep venous thrombosis in primary care. A simple diagnostic algorithm including D-dimer testing. Thromb Haemost 2005;94:200-5.
5. Toll DB, Oudega R, Bulten RJ, Hoes AW, Moons KG. Excluding deep vein thrombosis safely in primary care. J Fam Pract 2006;55:613-8.
6. Moons KG, Grobbee DE. When should we remain blind and when should our eyes remain open in diagnostic research. J Clin Epidemiol 2002;55:633-6.
7. Ransohoff DF, Feinstein AR. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med 1978;299:926-30.
8. Hlatky MA, Pryor DB, Harrell FE Jr, Califf RM, Mark DB, Rosati RA. Factors affecting sensitivity and specificity of exercise electrocardiography. Multivariable analysis. Am J Med 1984;77:64-71.
9. Moons K, van Es GA, Deckers JW, Habbema JD, Grobbee DE. Limitations of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, and Bayes' theorem in assessing diagnostic probabilities: a clinical example. Epidemiology 1997;8:12-7.
10. Leeflang MM, Bossuyt PM, Irwig L. Diagnostic test accuracy may vary with prevalence: implications for evidence-based diagnosis. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:5-12.
11. Moons KG, van Es GA, Michel BC, Buller HR, Habbema JD, Grobbee DE. Redundancy of single diagnostic test evaluation. Epidemiology 1999;10:276-81.
12. Reitsma JB, Rutjes AW, Khan KS, Coomarasamy A, Bossuyt PM. A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:797-806.
13. de Groot JA, Janssen KJ, Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Moons KG. Correcting for partial verification bias: a comparison of methods. Ann Epidemiol 2011;21:139-48.
14. Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Vandenbroucke JP, Glas AS, Bossuyt PM. Case-control and two-gates design in diagnostic accuracy studies. Clin Chem 2005;51:1335-41.
15. Biesheuvel CJ, Vergouwe Y, Oudega R, Hoes AW, Grobbee DE, Moons KG. Advantages of the nested case-control design in diagnostic research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008;8:48.
16. Lijmer JG, Moi BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, Van der Meulen JHP, Bossuyt PMM. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 1999;282:1061-6.
17. Brown LD, Cai TT, DasGupta A. Interval estimation for a binomial proportion. Stat Science 2001;16:101-33.
18. Bachmann LM, Puhan MA, ter Riet G, Bossuyt PM. Sample sizes of studies on diagnostic accuracy: literature survey. BMJ 2006;332:1127-9.
19. Vecchio TJ. Predictive value of a single diagnostic test in unselected populations. N Engl J Med 1966;274:1171-3.
20. Metz CE, Goodenough DJ, Rossmann K. Evaluation of receiver operating characteristic curve data in terms of information theory, with applications in radiography. Radiology 1973;109:297-303.
21. Hanley JA, Mcneil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29-36.
22. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983;148:839-43.
23. Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 1993;39:561-77.
24. Obuchowski NA, Lieber ML, Wians FH Jr. ROC curves in clinical chemistry: uses, misuses, and possible solutions. Clin Chem 2004;50:1118-25.
25. Moons KG, Stijnen T, Michel BC, Büller HR, Van Es GA, Grobbee DE, Habbema JD. Application of treatment thresholds to diagnostic-test evaluation: an alternative to the comparison of areas under receiver operating characteristic curves. Med Decis Making 1997;17:447-54.
26. Linnet K, Brandt E. Assessing diagnostic tests once an optimal cutoff point has been selected. Clin Chem 1986;32:1341-6.
27. Leeflang MM, Moons KG, Reitsma JB, Zwinderman AH. Bias in sensitivity and specificity caused by data-driven selection of optimal cut-off values: mechanism, magnitude, and solutions. Clin Chem 2008;54:729-37.
28. Albert A. On the use and computation of likelihood ratios in clinical chemistry. Clin Chem 1982;28:1113-9.
29. Fagan TJ. Letter: Nomogram for Bayes theorem. N Engl J Med 1975;293:257.
30. Geersing GJ, Toll DB, Janssen KJM, Oudega R, Blikman MJC, Wijland R, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and user-friendliness of 5 point-of-care D-dimer tests for the exclusion of deep vein thrombosis. Clin Chem 2010;56:1758-66.
31. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. 1st ed. London: Chapman & Hall; 1991. p 258.
32. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837-45.