AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gelfand, D.
Right arrow Articles by Ott, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gelfand, D.
Right arrow Articles by Ott, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 144, Issue 6, 1117-1121
Copyright © 1985 by American Roentgen Ray Society

Articles

Methodologic considerations in comparing imaging methods

DW Gelfand and DJ Ott

Current methods for evaluating and comparing imaging methods may be inadequate in several important aspects. Prospective investigations often fail to provide uniform conditions for data collection due to variable physician skills in performing the studies being evaluated. The double-blind format, although seemingly objective, is inherently unable to prevent the effects of examiner or observer prejudice when imaging methods are being compared. Commonly used statistical terms are limited in their ability to characterize the clinical efficacy of imaging methods, and are easily misused. Reference examinations, or "gold standards," may be used in a manner preordaining an inferior result for the diagnostic method under evaluation. These problems are discussed and examples of their effects are presented. Suggestions are presented for minimizing existing methodologic limitations.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Arch SurgHome page
P. E. Valk, E. Abella-Columna, M. K. Haseman, T. R. Pounds, R. D. Tesar, R. W. Myers, H. B. Greiss, and G. A. Hofer
Whole-Body PET Imaging With [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose in Management of Recurrent Colorectal Cancer
Arch Surg, May 1, 1999; 134(5): 503 - 511.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
P. E. Valk, T. R. Pounds, D. M. Hopkins, M. K. Haseman, G. A. Hofer, H. B. Greiss, R. W. Myers, and C. L. Lutrin
Staging Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer by Whole-Body Positron Emission Tomographic Imaging
Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 1995; 60(6): 1573 - 1581.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
R. M. Poses, R. D. Cebul, and R. S. Wigton
You Can Lead a Horse to Water-Improving Physicians' Knowledge of Probabilities May Not Affect Their Decisions
Med Decis Making, February 1, 1995; 15(1): 65 - 75.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
E Stokland, M Hellstrom, S Hansson, O Jodal, A Oden, and B Jacobsson
Reliability of ultrasonography in identification of reflux nephropathy in children
BMJ, July 23, 1994; 309(6949): 235 - 239.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
R. M. Poses, R. D. Cebul, and R. M. Centor
Eualuating Physicians' Probabilistic Judgments
Med Decis Making, December 1, 1988; 8(4): 233 - 240.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1985 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.