ReviewRadiology research and practice2021
Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Radiology: How to Recognize and Address Potential Sources of Bias.
Review in Radiology research and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Methodological considerations in assessing diagnostic accuracy of home sleep apnea tests in children.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2026Article
- A pretreatment multiphasic CT-based decision-support model for differentiating pediatric hepatoblastoma from focal nodular hyperplasia.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Radiological Findings of Chest X-Rays During the Hajj Seasons 1444-1445 H/2023-2024 G: Diagnostic Quality and Gender Differences in Interpretation Concordance.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- A unified framework for diagnostic test development and evaluation during outbreaks of emerging infections.Communications medicine · 2024Review
- Performance of an ultra-fast deep-learning accelerated MRI screening protocol for prostate cancer compared to a standard multiparametric protocol.European radiology · 2024Article
- Use of radiologic imaging to differentiate lipoma from atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma: Systematic review.SAGE open medicine · 2024Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accuracy is an important parameter of a diagnostic test. Studies that attempt to determine a test's accuracy can suffer from various forms of bias. As radiology is a diagnostic specialty, many radiologists may design a diagnostic accuracy study or review one to understand how it may apply to their practice. Radiologists also frequently serve as consultants to other physicians regarding the selection of the most appropriate diagnostic exams. In these roles, understanding how to critically appraise the literature is important for all radiologists. The purpose of this review is to provide a framework for evaluating potential sources of study design biases that are found in diagnostic accuracy studies and to explain their impact on sensitivity and specificity estimates. To help the reader understand these biases, we also present examples from the radiology literature.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.