Number allowed to diagnose

Epidemiology

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 158-159

  Gerke, Oke ^a   Vach, Werner ^b  

^a ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; LETTER; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

DIAGNOSIS; HUMANS; SAMPLE SIZE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84890092272     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: 15315487     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3182a77a81     Document Type: Letter

References (5)

1. Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:1728-1733
2. Bandolier. How Good Is That Test? II. Available at: Http://www.medicine. ox.ac.uk/bandolier/ band27/b27-2.html. Accessed 25 June 2013
3. Habibzadeh F. Number needed to misdiagnose. A measure of diagnostic test effectiveness [research letter]. Epidemiology. 2013;24:170
4. Newcombe RG. Simultaneous comparison of sensitivity and specificity of two tests in the paired design: A straightforward graphical approach. Stat Med. 2001;20:907-915
5. Vach W, Gerke O, Høilund-Carlsen PF. Three principles to define the success of a diagnostic study could be identified. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:293-300