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
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 Ott, D.
Right arrow Articles by Wu, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ott, D.
Right arrow Articles by Wu, W.
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 153, Issue 4, 735-739
Copyright © 1989 by American Roentgen Ray Society


Articles

Positive predictive value and posttest probability of diagnosis of colonic polyp on single- and double-contrast barium enema

DJ Ott, ES Scharling, YM Chen, DW Gelfand, and WC Wu

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.
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
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
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]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
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
Copyright © 1989 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.