Suppr超能文献

诊断试验的评估。当前医学研究综述。

The assessment of diagnostic tests. A survey of current medical research.

作者信息

Sheps S B, Schechter M T

出版信息

JAMA. 1984 Nov 2;252(17):2418-22.

PMID:6481928
Abstract

To study current diagnostic test evaluation, 129 recent articles were assessed against several well-known methodological criteria. Only 68% employed a well-defined "gold standard." Test interpretation was clearly described in only 68% and was stated to be "blind" in only 40%. Approximately 20% used the terms sensitivity and specificity incorrectly. Predictive values were considered in only 31% and the influence of disease prevalence and study setting was considered in only 19%. Overall, 74% failed to demonstrate more than four of seven important characteristics and there was an increased proportion of high specificities reported in this group. Articles assessing new tests reported high sensitivities and specificities significantly more often than articles assessing existing tests. These results indicate a clear need for greater attention to accepted methodological standards on the part of researchers, reviewers, and editors.

摘要

为研究当前诊断试验的评估情况,依据若干知名方法学标准对129篇近期文章进行了评估。仅有68%的文章采用了明确界定的“金标准”。仅68%的文章清晰描述了试验解读,且仅40%称其为“盲法”。约20%的文章错误使用了敏感性和特异性这两个术语。仅31%的文章考虑了预测值,仅19%的文章考虑了疾病患病率和研究背景的影响。总体而言,74%的文章未能展现出七个重要特征中的四个以上,且该组报告的高特异性比例有所增加。评估新试验的文章比评估现有试验的文章更频繁地显著报告高敏感性和特异性。这些结果表明,研究人员、审稿人和编辑显然需要更加关注公认的方法学标准。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验