These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
3. Diagnostic testing, pre- and post-test probabilities, and their use in clinical practice. Paulo S; Mendes S; Vizinho R; Carneiro AV Rev Port Cardiol; 2004 Sep; 23(9):1187-98. PubMed ID: 15587576 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Visualizing the impact of prevalence on a diagnostic test. Rehling M Scand J Clin Lab Invest; 2010 Oct; 70(6):458-61. PubMed ID: 20645678 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Uncertainty in Bayes. Baron JA Med Decis Making; 1994; 14(1):46-51. PubMed ID: 8152356 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Improving the diagnosis of bipolar disorder: predictive value of screening tests. Phelps JR; Ghaemi SN J Affect Disord; 2006 Jun; 92(2-3):141-8. PubMed ID: 16529822 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The predictive characteristics of D-dimer testing in outpatients with suspected venous thromboembolism: a Bayesian approach. Risch L; Monn A; Lüthy R; Honegger H; Huber AR Clin Chim Acta; 2004 Jul; 345(1-2):79-87. PubMed ID: 15193980 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Evidence-based medicine in otolaryngology, Part 3: everyday probabilities: diagnostic tests with binary results. Shin JJ; Stinnett S; Page J; Randolph GW Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2012 Aug; 147(2):185-92. PubMed ID: 22588733 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Measurements of diagnostic examination performance using quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient and proton MR spectroscopic imaging in the preoperative evaluation of tumor grade in cerebral gliomas. Server A; Kulle B; Gadmar ØB; Josefsen R; Kumar T; Nakstad PH Eur J Radiol; 2011 Nov; 80(2):462-70. PubMed ID: 20708868 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Stepwise diagnostic workup in general practice as a consequence of the Bayesian reasoning]. Schneider A; Dinant GJ; Szecsenyi J Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich; 2006; 100(2):121-7. PubMed ID: 16686446 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Using evidence to determine diagnostic test efficacy. Replogle WH; Johnson WD; Hoover KW Worldviews Evid Based Nurs; 2009; 6(2):87-92. PubMed ID: 19413584 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Estimating sensitivity and specificity from positive predictive value, negative predictive value and prevalence: application to surveillance systems for hospital-acquired infections. Kelly H; Bull A; Russo P; McBryde ES J Hosp Infect; 2008 Jun; 69(2):164-8. PubMed ID: 18448199 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Using Bayes theorem to estimate positive and negative predictive values for continuously and ordinally scaled diagnostic tests. Fischer F Int J Methods Psychiatr Res; 2021 Jun; 30(2):e1868. PubMed ID: 33650777 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Diagnostic accuracy]. Simundić AM Acta Med Croatica; 2006; 60 Suppl 1():93-111. PubMed ID: 16526310 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Predictive value and efficiency of hematology data. Galen RS Blood Cells; 1980; 6(2):185-97. PubMed ID: 6769520 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. An investigation of new toxicity test method performance in validation studies: 3. Sensitivity and specificity are not independent of prevalence or distribution of toxicity. Bruner LH; Carr GJ; Harbell JW; Curren RD Hum Exp Toxicol; 2002 Jun; 21(6):325-34. PubMed ID: 12195936 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Diagnostic capacity of rapid influenza antigen test: reappraisal with experience from the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Yang JH; Huang PY; Shie SS; Huang CG; Tsao KC; Huang CT J Microbiol Immunol Infect; 2012 Apr; 45(2):102-7. PubMed ID: 22177367 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]