Suppr超能文献

解读诊断试验准确性研究。

Interpreting diagnostic test accuracy studies.

作者信息

Bossuyt Patrick M M

机构信息

Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

出版信息

Semin Hematol. 2008 Jul;45(3):189-95. doi: 10.1053/j.seminhematol.2008.04.001.

Abstract

A central phase in the evaluation of a medical test is the assessment of its diagnostic accuracy: the degree to which the test results correspond to those of the clinical reference standard. There are several methods by which the results of diagnostic accuracy studies can be summarized, reported, and interpreted. Here we provide an overview and a critical commentary of three measures: error-based measures, information-based measures, and measures of the strength of the association. All of these measures may vary between studies, with changes in the definition of the target condition, the spectrum of disease, the setting, and the amount of prior testing. We discuss the relativity of the claim that likelihood ratios are a superior way of expressing diagnostic accuracy, and defend the use of the sometimes downgraded sensitivity and specificity.

摘要

医学检验评估中的一个核心阶段是对其诊断准确性的评估

即检验结果与临床参考标准结果的相符程度。有几种方法可用于总结、报告和解释诊断准确性研究的结果。在此,我们对三种测量方法进行概述并给出批判性评论:基于误差的测量方法、基于信息的测量方法以及关联强度的测量方法。所有这些测量方法在不同研究之间可能会有所不同,这取决于目标疾病的定义、疾病谱、研究背景以及先前检测的数量。我们讨论了似然比是表达诊断准确性的更优方式这一说法的相对性,并为有时被贬低的灵敏度和特异度的使用进行辩护。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验