Author: Whiting, Penny F; Sterne, Jonathan AC; Westwood, Marie E; Bachmann, Lucas M; Harbord, Roger; Egger, Matthias; Deeks, Jonathan J
Title: Graphical presentation of diagnostic information Cord-id: 4899cq99 Document date: 2008_4_11
ID: 4899cq99
Snippet: BACKGROUND: Graphical displays of results allow researchers to summarise and communicate the key findings of their study. Diagnostic information should be presented in an easily interpretable way, which conveys both test characteristics (diagnostic accuracy) and the potential for use in clinical practice (predictive value). METHODS: We discuss the types of graphical display commonly encountered in primary diagnostic accuracy studies and systematic reviews of such studies, and systematically revi
Document: BACKGROUND: Graphical displays of results allow researchers to summarise and communicate the key findings of their study. Diagnostic information should be presented in an easily interpretable way, which conveys both test characteristics (diagnostic accuracy) and the potential for use in clinical practice (predictive value). METHODS: We discuss the types of graphical display commonly encountered in primary diagnostic accuracy studies and systematic reviews of such studies, and systematically review the use of graphical displays in recent diagnostic primary studies and systematic reviews. RESULTS: We identified 57 primary studies and 49 systematic reviews. Fifty-six percent of primary studies and 53% of systematic reviews used graphical displays to present results. Dot-plot or box-and- whisker plots were the most commonly used graph in primary studies and were included in 22 (39%) studies. ROC plots were the most common type of plot included in systematic reviews and were included in 22 (45%) reviews. One primary study and five systematic reviews included a probability-modifying plot. CONCLUSION: Graphical displays are currently underused in primary diagnostic accuracy studies and systematic reviews of such studies. Diagnostic accuracy studies need to include multiple types of graphic in order to provide both a detailed overview of the results (diagnostic accuracy) and to communicate information that can be used to inform clinical practice (predictive value). Work is required to improve graphical displays, to better communicate the utility of a test in clinical practice and the implications of test results for individual patients.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- absent present and magnetic resonance: 1, 2, 3
- absent present and magnetic resonance imaging: 1, 2
- accuracy study and low sensitivity: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
- accuracy study and low sensitivity high specificity: 1
- accuracy study and low specificity: 1, 2, 3, 4
- accuracy study and low specificity high sensitivity: 1
- accuracy study and magnetic resonance: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
- accuracy study and magnetic resonance imaging: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
- accurate test and low sensitivity: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
- accurate test and low sensitivity high specificity: 1
- accurate test and low specificity: 1, 2
- accurate test and low specificity high sensitivity: 1
- low sensitivity and magnetic resonance: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
- low sensitivity and magnetic resonance imaging: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
- low sensitivity high specificity and magnetic resonance: 1
- low sensitivity high specificity and magnetic resonance imaging: 1
- low specificity and magnetic resonance: 1, 2, 3
- low specificity and magnetic resonance imaging: 1, 2
- low specificity high sensitivity and magnetic resonance imaging: 1
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date