1999
DOI: 10.1097/00001648-199905000-00015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Redundancy of Single Diagnostic Test Evaluation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
64
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 72 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
64
0
Order By: Relevance
“…If biomarkers are considered separately from the Clinical model, haptoglobin and MMP-2 are associated with advanced fibrosis. These tests, however, have no additional value beyond the routine clinical data and thus can be omitted from the diagnostic process [15]. These findings suggest that the limitation of odds ratio in assessing potential new markers, highlighting the necessity for examining ROC to form a more comprehensive picture of clinical relevance for any candidate marker [16].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If biomarkers are considered separately from the Clinical model, haptoglobin and MMP-2 are associated with advanced fibrosis. These tests, however, have no additional value beyond the routine clinical data and thus can be omitted from the diagnostic process [15]. These findings suggest that the limitation of odds ratio in assessing potential new markers, highlighting the necessity for examining ROC to form a more comprehensive picture of clinical relevance for any candidate marker [16].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To ascertain or rule out a diagnosis, the physician decides upon additional tests based on findings in previous steps, to increase or decrease the probability of a target condition. We believe that diagnostic research should follow the sequential process of making a diagnosis in practice, and also aim to quantify the added value of a new test in relation to clinical information available from existing methods [19,20].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A value exceeding 0.7 is interpreted as reasonable, and a value in excess of 0.8 is considered to be good. 11 A 5% level of significance was used throughout, and all statistical tests were two sided. The statistical analyses were performed using a commercially available program, SPSS 10.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%