Abstract
Yerushalmy’s pioneering work (1) on observer variability in the interpretation of chest roentgenograms initiated a still-expanding interest in the evaluation of the diagnostic process. He introduced the terms sensitivity and specificity as measures of the validity of diagnostic tests and an entire methodology, including the concept of predictive value has developed in response to the geometric growth in and reliance on diagnostic testing in clinical practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
References
Vershalmy J. Statistical problems in assessing methods of medical diagnosis with special reference to x-ray techniques. Public Health Rep 1947; 62: 1432–49.
Foti AG, Cooper JF, Hershman H, Malvaez RR. Detection of prostatic cancer by solid-shape radioimmunoassay of serum prostatic acid phosphatase. N EngI J Med 1977; 297: 1357–61.
Gittes R. Acid phosphatase reappraised. N Engl J Med 1977; 297: 1398–9.
Watson RA, Tang DB. The predictive value of prostatic acid phosphatase as a screening test for prostatic cancer. N Engl J Med 1980; 303: 497–9.
Bayes T. An essay toward solving a problem in the doctrine of chance. Philos Trans R Soc London 1763; 53: 370–418.
Additional Reading
Galen RS, Gambino SR. Beyond normality: the predictive value and efficiency of medical diagnoses. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975.
McNeil BJ, Keeler E, Adelstein SJ. Primer on certain elements of medical decision making. N Engl J Med 1975; 293: 211–5.
Vecchio TJ. Predictive value of a single diagnostic test in unselected populations. N Engl J Med 1966; 274: 1171–3.
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University. How to read a clinical journal: II To learn about a diagnostic test. Can Med Assoc J 1981; 124: 703–10.
Feinstein AR. On the sensitivity, specificity, and discrimination of diagnostic tests, in clinical biostatistics. St. Louis: CV Mosby Co., 1977: 214–226.
Griner PF, Mayewski RJ, Mushlin AL, et al. Selection and interpretation of tests and procedures: principles and applications. Ann Int Med 1981; 94: 557–600.
Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV. Clinical decision analysis. Philadelphia: WB Sanunders Co., 1980.
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University: Interpretation of diagnostic data (six parts). Can Med Assoc J 1983; 129:429–32, 559–64, 587, 705–10, 832–5, 947— 54, 1093–9.
Sheps SB, Schechter MT. The assessment of diagnostic tests A survey of current medical research. JAMA 1984; 252: 241–822.
Schechter MT, Sheps SB. Diagnostic testing revisited: pathways through uncertainty. Can Med Assoc J 1985; 132: 755–760.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1986 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schechter, M.T. (1986). Evaluation of the Diagnostic Process. In: Troidl, H., Spitzer, W.O., McPeek, B., Mulder, D.S., McKneally, M.F. (eds) Principles and Practice of Research. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-96942-3_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-96942-3_20
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-96944-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-96942-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive