Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29089821›Full record

ArticleKorean journal of radiology

Selection and Reporting of Statistical Methods to Assess Reliability of a Diagnostic Test: Conformity to Recommended Methods in a Peer-Reviewed Journal.

Ji Eun Park, Kyunghwa Han, Yu Sub Sung, Mi Sun Chung, Hyun Jung Koo, Hee Mang Yoon, Young Jun Choi, Seung Soo Lee, Kyung Won Kim, Youngbin Shin and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Korean journal of radiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Ji Eun ParkDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05505, Korea.
Kyunghwa HanDepartment of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, Korea.
Yu Sub SungDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05505, Korea.
Mi Sun ChungDepartment of Radiology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul 06973, Korea.
Hyun Jung KooDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05505, Korea.
Hee Mang YoonDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05505, Korea.
Young Jun ChoiDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05505, Korea.
Seung Soo LeeDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05505, Korea.
Kyung Won KimDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05505, Korea.
Youngbin ShinDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05505, Korea.
Suah AnDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05505, Korea.
Hyo-Min ChoKorea Research Institute of Standards and Science, Daejeon 34113, Korea.
Seong Ho ParkDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05505, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the frequency and adequacy of statistical analyses in a general radiology journal when reporting a reliability analysis for a diagnostic test. MATERIALS AND

methodsSixty-three studies of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and 36 studies reporting reliability analyses published in the

resultsThirty-one (49.2%) of the 63 DTA studies did not include a reliability analysis when deemed necessary. Among the 36 reliability studies, proper statistical methods were used in all (5/5) studies dealing with dichotomous/nominal data, 46.7% (7/15) of studies dealing with ordinal data, and 95.2% (20/21) of studies dealing with continuous data. Statistical methods were described in sufficient detail regarding weighted kappa in 28.6% (2/7) of studies and regarding the model and assumptions of intraclass correlation coefficient in 35.3% (6/17) and 29.4% (5/17) of studies, respectively. Reliability parameters were used as if they were agreement parameters in 23.1% (3/13) of studies. Reproducibility and repeatability were used incorrectly in 20% (3/15) of studies.

conclusionGreater attention to the importance of reporting reliability, thorough description of the related statistical methods, efforts not to neglect agreement parameters, and better use of relevant terminology is necessary.

Indexed as

Peer Review, ResearchUser-Computer InterfaceDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansReproducibility of ResultsAgreementReliabilityRepeatabilityRepeatability coefficientReproducibilitySoftware programStatistical analysisStatistical method

Identifiers

PMID29089821
PMCPMC5639154

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.