The British Journal of Radiology, Vol 70, Issue 838 1028-1035, Copyright © 1997 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

The identification of bias in studies of the diagnostic performance of imaging modalities

S Kelly, E Berry, P Roderick, KM Harris, J Cullingworth, L Gathercole, J Hutton and MA Smith
Centre of Medical Imaging Research, University of Leeds, Leeds General Infirmary, UK.

The demand for evidence-based healthcare is increasing nationally and internationally and it is equally necessary in both diagnostic and therapeutic practice. Evidence may be collected and combined by means of a systematic literature review of published and unpublished data on a well-defined topic. The output of such reviews is then available to guide health policy, influence good practice or direct research. Published guidelines are available on the performance of systematic reviews, especially those of randomized controlled trials. Although there is an extensive literature base of research data in diagnostic imaging there are few such trials, but it is still possible to perform systematic reviews. With the alternative study designs encountered it is important to be aware of the main threats to study validity. In this paper the biases likely to be encountered in studies of diagnostic performance are reviewed, with particular reference to diagnostic imaging tests. The biases are sub-divided into three categories. The first category is patient selection and covers the validity of generalizing results beyond the study population. The other two, concerning study design and execution and the interpretation of results, affect the likely validity of the results of a study. An understanding of these factors is an essential prerequisite for those undertaking or using a systematic literature review in the field of diagnostic imaging. The definitions form the foundations of a defensible review protocol.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. C. Kwee, R. M. Kwee, and R. A. J. Nievelstein Imaging in staging of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review Blood, January 15, 2008; 111(2): 504 - 516. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. M. Kwee and T. C. Kwee Imaging in Local Staging of Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review J. Clin. Oncol., May 20, 2007; 25(15): 2107 - 2116. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. Hollingworth, L.S. Medina, R.E. Lenkinski, D.K. Shibata, B. Bernal, D. Zurakowski, B. Comstock, and J.G. Jarvik A Systematic Literature Review of Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy for the Characterization of Brain Tumors AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., August 1, 2006; 27(7): 1404 - 1411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. M. J. Uitdehaag, J. J. G. Geurts, F. Barkhof, C. H. Polman, D. S. Goodin, and E. M. Frohman The utility of MRI in suspected MS: Report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee Neurology, September 28, 2004; 63(6): 1140 - 1140. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. H. Blackstone and M. S. Lauer Caveat emptor: The treachery of work-up bias J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2004; 128(3): 341 - 344. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. E Westwood, S. Kelly, E. Berry, J. M Bamford, M. J Gough, C M. Airey, J. F M Meaney, L. M Davies, J. Cullingworth, and M. A Smith Use of magnetic resonance angiography to select candidates with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis for surgery: systematic review BMJ, January 26, 2002; 324(7331): 198 - 198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S Kelly, K M Harris, E Berry, J Hutton, P Roderick, J Cullingworth, L Gathercole, and M A Smith A systematic review of the staging performance of endoscopic ultrasound in gastro-oesophageal carcinoma Gut, October 1, 2001; 49(4): 534 - 539. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S Brealey and A J Scally Bias in plain film reading performance studies Br. J. Radiol., April 1, 2001; 74(880): 307 - 316. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]