|
|
||||||||
Articles |
Department of Radiology, Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27103.
The positive predictive value for a radiographic diagnosis of colonic polyp, the prevalence of polypoid disease, and posttest probability relative to patient age were studied. The positive predictive value for colonic polyp on single- and double-contrast barium enema was determined for 191 polyps found radiographically in 136 patients who also underwent colonoscopy for confirmation. Of 72 polyps seen in 54 patients on single-contrast examination, 59 were confirmed endoscopically; 110 of 119 polyps seen in 82 patients on double-contrast examination were confirmed similarly, giving positive predictive values of 82% and 92%, respectively. Positive predictive values per patient, disregarding the number of polyps present, were 87% (47/54) and 90% (74/82) for the single- and double-contrast examinations, respectively. False-positive errors were due to stool, air bubbles, haustration, and misinterpretation of an appendiceal stump. By using specificities derived from our prevalence of polypoid disease and previously reported sensitivities, we drew posttest probability curves showing that predictive values depend both on the chance of disease before the test is done and on the efficacy of the test used.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
J. Sosna, T. Sella, O. Sy, P. T. Lavin, R. Eliahou, S. Fraifeld, and E. Libson Critical Analysis of the Performance of Double-Contrast Barium Enema for Detecting Colorectal Polyps >= 6 mm in the Era of CT Colonography Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2008; 190(2): 374 - 385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. M. McMahon, J. L. Bosch, S. Gleason, E. F. Halpern, J. S. Lester, and G. S. Gazelle Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Radiology, April 1, 2001; 219(1): 44 - 50. [Abstract] [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
S. Glick Double-Contrast Barium Enema for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Review of the Issues and a Comparison with Other Screening Alternatives Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2000; 174(6): 1529 - 1537. [Full Text] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |