Patients' & healthcare professionals' values regarding true- & false-positive diagnosis when colorectal cancer screening by CT colonography: Discrete choice experiment

PLoS ONE

Volumn 8, Issue 12, 2013, Pages

  Boone, Darren ^a   Mallett, Susan ^b   Zhu, Shihua ^c   Yao, Guiqing Lily ^d   Bell, Nichola ^a   Ghanouni, Alex ^a   Von Wagner, Christian ^a   Taylor, Stuart A ^a   Altman, Douglas G ^e   Lilford, Richard ^c   Halligan, Steve ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; COLORECTAL CANCER; COLORECTAL POLYP; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FALSE POSITIVE DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT ATTITUDE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRUE POSITIVE DIAGNOSIS;

COLONIC POLYPS; COLONOGRAPHY, COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; HUMANS; PATIENTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84892566852     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080767     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Halligan S, Hopewell S, Cornelius V, et al. (2006) Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting. BMJ 333: 413.
2. Lucas NP, Macaskill P, Irwig L, Bogduk N (2010) The development of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL). J Clin Epidemiol 63: 854-861.
3. Salz T, Richman AR, Brewer NT (2010) Meta-analyses of the effect of false-positive mammograms on generic and specific psychosocial outcomes. Psychooncology 19: 1026-1034.
4. Fenton JJ, Taplin SH, Carney PA, Abraham L, Sickles EA, et al. (2007) Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med 356: 1399-1409.
5. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A (2007) Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 244: 708-717.
6. Yankaskas BC, Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, Geller BM, Rosenberg RD, et al. (2005) Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States. Radiology 234: 363-373.
7. Metz CE (1989) Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. Invest Radiol 24: 234-245.
8. Metz CE (2006) Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis: A Tool for the Quantitative Evaluation of Observer Performance and Imaging Systems. Journal of the American College of Radiology 3: 413-422.
9. Altman DG, Vergouwe Y, Royston P, Moons KG (2009) Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model. BMJ 338: b605.
10. Shiraishi J, Pesce LL, Metz CE, Doi K (2009) Experimental Design and Data Analysis in Receiver Operating Characteristic Studies: Lessons Learned from Reports in Radiology from 1997 to 20061. Radiology 253: 822-830.
11. Mallett S, Halligan S, Thompson M, Collins GS, Altman DG (2012) Interpreting diagnostic accuracy studies for patient care. BMJ 345: e3999.
12. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Sox HC, Fischhoff B, Welch HG (2000) US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey. BMJ 320: 1635-1640.
13. von Wagner C, Halligan S, Atkin WS, Lilford RJ, Morton D, et al. (2009) Choosing between CT colonography and colonoscopy in the diagnostic context: a qualitative study of influences on patient preferences. Health Expect 12: 18-26.
14. Ghanouni A, Smith SG, Halligan S, Plumb A, Boone D, et al. (2012) Public perceptions and preferences for CT colonography or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. Patient Educ Couns 89: 116-121.
15. Dhruva SS, Phurrough SE, Salive ME, Redberg RF (2009) CMS's landmark decision on CT colonography-examining the relevant data. N Engl J Med 360: 2699-2701.
16. Ryan M (2004) Discrete choice experiments in health care. BMJ 328: 360-361.
17. Ryan M, Farrar S (2000) Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 320: 1530-1533.
18. Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, et al. (2011) Conjoint analysis applications in health-a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health 14: 403-413.
19. Pisani P, Bray F, Parkin DM (2002) Estimates of the world-wide prevalence of cancer for 25 sites in the adult population. Int J Cancer 97: 72-81.
20. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, et al. (2009) Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 59: 225-249.
21. Schoenfeld P, Cash B, Flood A, Dobhan R, Eastone J, et al. (2005) Colonoscopic screening of average-risk women for colorectal neoplasia. N Engl J Med 352: 2061-2068.
22. Marshall D, Bridges JF, Hauber B, Cameron R, Donnalley L, et al. (2010) Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health - How are Studies being Designed and Reported?: An Update on Current Practice in the Published Literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient 3: 249-256.
23. Boynton PM, Wood GW, Greenhalgh T (2004) Reaching beyond the white middle classes. BMJ 328: 1433-1436.
24. Gatta G, Capocaccia R, Sant M, Bell CM, Coebergh JW, et al. (2000) Understanding variations in survival for colorectal cancer in Europe: a EUROCARE high resolution study. Gut 47: 533-538.
25. Robinson MH, Hardcastle JD, Moss SM, Amar SS, Chamberlain JO, et al. (1999) The risks of screening: data from the Nottingham randomised controlled trial of faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer. Gut 45: 588-592.
26. Winawer SJ (2007) Colorectal cancer screening. Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology 21: 1031-1048.
27. Spiegelhalter D, Pearson M, Short I (2011) Visualizing Uncertainty About the Future. Science 333: 1393-1400.
28. Group UCCSP (2004) Results of the first round of a demonstration pilot of screening for colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom. BMJ 329: 133.
29. Boynton PM, Greenhalgh T (2004) Selecting, designing, and developing your questionnaire. BMJ 328: 1312-1315.
30. Von Wagner C, Knight K, Halligan S, Atkin W, Lilford R, et al. (2009) Patient experiences of colonoscopy, barium enema and CT colonography: a qualitative study. Br J Radiol 82: 13-19.
31. Eng J (2003) Sample Size Estimation: How Many Individuals Should Be Studied?1. Radiology 227: 309-313.
32. Moons KG, Stijnen T, Michel BC, Buller HR, Van Es GA, et al. (1997) Application of treatment thresholds to diagnostic-test evaluation: an alternative to the comparison of areas under receiver operating characteristic curves. Med Decis Making 17: 447-454.
33. Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Phillips KA, Marshall JK, Thabane L, et al. (2007) Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health 10: 415-430.
34. Nayaradou M, Berchi C, Dejardin O, Launoy G (2010) Eliciting population preferences for mass colorectal cancer screening organization. Med Decis Making 30: 224-233.
35. Dachman AH, Obuchowski NA, Hoffmeister JW, Hinshaw JL, Frew MI, et al. (2010) Effect of computer-aided detection for CT colonography in a multireader, multicase trial. Radiology 256: 827-835.
36. Summers RM, Yao J, Pickhardt PJ, Franaszek M, Bitter I, et al. (2005) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy computer-aided polyp detection in a screening population. Gastroenterology 129: 1832-1844.
37. Halligan S, Mallett S, Altman DG, McQuillan J, Proud M, et al. (2010) Incremental Benefit of Computer-aided Detection when Used as a Second and Concurrent Reader of CT Colonographic Data: Multiobserver Study. Radiology.
38. Halligan S, Altman DG, Mallett S, Taylor SA, Burling D, et al. (2006) Computed tomographic colonography: assessment of radiologist performance with and without computer-aided detection. Gastroenterology 131: 1690-1699.
39. Halligan S, Mallett S, Altman DG, McQuillan J, Proud M, et al. (2011) Incremental benefit of computer-aided detection when used as a second and concurrent reader of CT colonographic data: multiobserver study. Radiology 258: 469-476.
40. Ryan M, Bate A, Eastmond CJ, Ludbrook A (2001) Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Qual Health Care 10 Suppl 1: i55-60.
41. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, et al. (2001) Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 5: 1-186.
42. Yi D, Ryan M, Campbell S, Elliott A, Torrance N, et al. (2011) Using discrete choice experiments to inform randomised controlled trials: an application to chronic low back pain management in primary care. Eur J Pain 15: 531 e531-510.
43. Watson V, Carnon A, Ryan M, Cox D (2011) Involving the public in priority setting: a case study using discrete choice experiments. J Public Health (Oxf).
44. Ozdemir S, Mohamed AF, Johnson FR, Hauber AB (2010) Who pays attention in stated-choice surveys? Health Econ 19: 111-118.
45. de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K (2012) Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ 21: 145-172.
46. Arnold D, Girling A, Stevens A, Lilford R (2009) Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: review and empirical analysis. BMJ 339: b2688-.