Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-rnpqb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T09:28:28.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing Sensitivity and Specificity in New Diagnostic Tests: The Importance and Challenges of Study Populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Paula Strassle ,
Aaron S. Hess ,
Kerri A. Thorn  and
Anthony D. Harris
Paula Strassle
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland Baltimore, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
Aaron S. Hess
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland Baltimore, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
Kerri A. Thorn
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland Baltimore, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
Anthony D. Harris*
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland Baltimore, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
*
MSTF 330, 685 W. Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD 21201 (aharris@epi.umaryland.edu)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Letters to the Editor
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 33 , Issue 11 , November 2012 , pp. 1177 - 1178
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2012

References

1.Bossuyt, PM, Reitsma, JB, Bruns, DE, et al.Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Ann Intern Med 2003;138(1):40–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Bossuyt, PM, Reitsma, JB, Bruns, DE, et al.The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2003;138(1):W1–W12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Hess, AS, Shardell, M, Johnson, JK, et al.Methods and recommendations for evaluating and reporting a new diagnostic test. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2012;31(9):2111–2116.Google Scholar
4.Jarvis, WR, Jarvis, AA, Chinn, RY. National prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in inpatients at United States health care facilities, 2010. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:194–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Harper, R, Henson, D, Reeves, BC. Appraising evaluations of screening/diagnostic tests: the importance of study populations. Br J Ophthalmol 2000;84:1198–1202.Google Scholar
6.Reid, MC, Lachs, MS, Feinstein, AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research: getting better but still not good. JAMA 1995;274(8):645–651.Google Scholar
7.Reitsma, JB, Rutjes, AWS, Khan, KS, Coomarasamy, A, Bossuyt, PM. A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:797–806.Google Scholar
8.Whiting, P, Rutjes, AWS, Reitsma, JB, Glas, AS, Bossuyt, PM, Kleijnen, J. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2004;140(3):189–202.Google Scholar