Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.
Skip to main content
Review

Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies.

Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Di Nisio M, et al. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. CMAJ. 2006;174(4):469-476. doi:10.1503/cmaj.050090.

Save
Print
February 14, 2006
Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Di Nisio M, et al. CMAJ. 2006;174(4):469-476.
View more articles from the same authors.

Clinician and patient understanding of the benefits and risks of screening tests can prevent both under- and over-diagnosis; as such, screening and diagnostic tests must provide accurate results. This review identified 31 meta-analyses with 487 studies of test evaluation. Study design (e.g., retrospective, prospective) greatly impacted estimated accuracy, highlighting the importance of considering design when conducting studies.

Save
Print
Cite
Citation

Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Di Nisio M, et al. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. CMAJ. 2006;174(4):469-476. doi:10.1503/cmaj.050090.