Seminars in Roentgenology
Volume 44, Issue 3 , Pages 158-165 , July 2009

Evidence-based Radiology: Step 3—Critical Appraisal of Diagnostic Literature

  • Paul Cronin, MD, MS, MRCPI, FRCR

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress reprint requests to Paul Cronin, MD, MS, MRCPI, FRCR, Department of Radiology, Division of Cardiothoracic Radiology, University of Michigan Hospitals, B1 132G Taubman Center/5302, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5302

References 

  1. Cronin P. Evidence-based radiology: Step 3— Primary literature validity (critical appraisal). Semin Roentgenol. 2009;44:153–157
  2. MacEneaney PM, Malone DE. The meaning of diagnostic test results: A spreadsheet for swift data analysis. Clin Radiol. 2000;55:227–235
  3. Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: Estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J Clin Res Ed. 1986;292:746–750
  4. Guyatt G, Jaeschke R, Heddle N, et al. Basic statistics for clinicians. 2. Interpreting study results: Confidence intervals. CMAJ. 1995;152:169–173
  5. Montori VM, Kleinbart J, Newman TB, et al. Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine. 2. Measures of precision (confidence intervals). CMAJ. 2004;171:611–615
  6. Park HM. Hypothesis testing and statistical power of a test. http://www.indiana.edu/∼statmath
  7. Brismar J, Jacobsson B. Definition of terms used to judge the efficacy of diagnostic tests: A graphic approach. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990;155:621–623
  8. Rosenquist CJ. Pitfalls in the use of diagnostic tests. Clin Radiol. 1989;40:448–450
  9. Black WC. How to evaluate the radiology literature. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990;154:17–22
  10. Gallagher EJ. Clinical utility of likelihood ratios. Ann Emerg Med. 1998;31:391–397
  11. Phillips WC, Scott JA, Blasczcynski G. Statistics for diagnostic procedures. I. How sensitive is “sensitivity”; how specific is “specificity”?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1983;140:1265–1270
  12. Dujardin B, Van den Ende J, Van Gompel A, et al. Likelihood ratios: A real improvement for clinical decision making?. Eur J Epidemiol. 1994;10:29–36
  13. Montori VM, Wyer P, Newman TB, et al. Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine. 5. The effect of spectrum of disease on the performance of diagnostic tests. CMAJ. 2005;173:385–390
  14. Cronin P, Dwamena BA, Kelly AM, et al. Solitary pulmonary nodules and masses: A meta-analysis of the diagnostic utility of alternative imaging tests. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:1840–1856
  15. Armstrong P, Black WC. Optimum utilisation of radiological tests: The radiologist as advisor. Clin Radiol. 1989;40:444–447
  16. Radack KL, Rouan G, Hedges J. The likelihood ratio: An improved measure for reporting and evaluating diagnostic test results. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1986;110:689–693
  17. Black WC, Armstrong P. Communicating the significance of radiologic test results: The likelihood ratio. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1986;147:1313–1318
  18. McGinn T, Jervis R, Wisnivesky J, et al. Tips for teachers of evidence-based medicine: Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) and estimating pretest probability. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:1261–1268
  19. Chang PJ. Bayesian analysis revisited: A radiologist's survival guide. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988;152:721–727
  20. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, et al. The interpretation of diagnostic data. In: Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine. (ed 2). Boston/Toronto/London, Little: Brown; 1991;p. 92–93
  21. Fagan TJ. Nomogram for Bayes theorem. N Engl J Med. 1975;293:257
  22. Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, et al. Is this evidence about a diagnostic test important?. Evidence Based Medicine, How to Practice and Teach EBM (ed 1), vol 127. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1998;

 This work was funded in part by GE-AUR Radiology Research Academic Fellowship.

PII: S0037-198X(09)00018-2

doi: 10.1053/j.ro.2009.03.016

Seminars in Roentgenology
Volume 44, Issue 3 , Pages 158-165 , July 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution