HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Langlotz, C. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Langlotz, C. P.

Fundamental Measures of Diagnostic Examination Performance: Usefulness for Clinical Decision Making and Research¹

¹ From the Departments of Radiology and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Received June 25, 2001; revision requested August 2; revision received May 3, 2002; accepted May 15. Address correspondence to the author (e-mail: langlotz@rad.upenn.edu).

Measures of diagnostic accuracy, such as sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and receiver operating characteristic curves, can often seem like abstract mathematic concepts that have a minimal relationship with clinical decision making or clinical research. The purpose of this article is to provide definitions and examples of these concepts that illustrate their usefulness in specific clinical decision-making tasks. In particular, nine principles are provided to guide the use of these concepts in daily radiology practice, in interpreting clinical literature, and in designing clinical research studies. An understanding of these principles and of the measures of diagnostic accuracy to which they apply is vital to the appropriate evaluation and use of diagnostic imaging examinations.

© RSNA, 2003

Index terms: Diagnostic radiology • Statistical analysis

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. Wen, K. A. Marsolo, E. E. Bennett, K. S. Kutten, R. P. Lewis, D. B. Lipps, N. D. Epstein, J. F. Plehn, and P. Croisille Adaptive Postprocessing Techniques for Myocardial Tissue Tracking with Displacement-encoded MR Imaging Radiology, January 1, 2008; 246(1): 229 - 240. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Cortellazzi, L. Minati, C. Falcone, M. Lamperti, and D. Caldiroli Predictive value of the El-Ganzouri multivariate risk index for difficult tracheal intubation: a comparison of Glidescope(R) videolaryngoscopy and conventional Macintosh laryngoscopy Br. J. Anaesth., December 1, 2007; 99(6): 906 - 911. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. M. Zangwill, S. Jain, L. Racette, K. B. Ernstrom, C. Bowd, F. A. Medeiros, P. A. Sample, and R. N. Weinreb The Effect of Disc Size and Severity of Disease on the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph Glaucoma Probability Score Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., June 1, 2007; 48(6): 2653 - 2660. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. P. Rodriguez, S. Vargas, M. J. Callahan, D. Zurakowski, and G. A. Taylor Appendicitis in young children: imaging experience and clinical outcomes. Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2006; 186(4): 1158 - 1164. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Janka, C. Fellner, E. Wenkel, W. Lang, W. Bautz, and F. A. Fellner Contrast-enhanced MR Angiography of Peripheral Arteries including Pedal Vessels at 1.0 T: Feasibility Study with Dedicated Peripheral Angiography Coil Radiology, April 1, 2005; 235(1): 319 - 326. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. L. Sistrom and C. W. Garvan Proportions, Odds, and Risk Radiology, January 1, 2004; 230(1): 12 - 19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]