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.
122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29066563)
1. Sensitivity and Specificity or Positive and Negative Percent Agreement? A Micro-Comic Strip. McAdam AJ J Clin Microbiol; 2017 Nov; 55(11):3153-3154. PubMed ID: 29066563 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Discrepant Analysis and Bias: a Micro-Comic Strip. McAdam AJ J Clin Microbiol; 2017 Oct; 55(10):2878-2879. PubMed ID: 28947507 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Prevalence and Predictive Values: a Micro-Comic Strip. McAdam AJ J Clin Microbiol; 2017 Sep; 55(9):2566. PubMed ID: 28835564 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Sensitivity and specificity should be de-emphasized in diagnostic accuracy studies. Moons KG; Harrell FE Acad Radiol; 2003 Jun; 10(6):670-2. PubMed ID: 12809422 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. [Diagnostic studies should follow international guidelines. Planning and evaluation requires theoretical and practical considerations]. Björk J; Hellström M; Mejare I; Nyman U Lakartidningen; 2013 Mar 13-19; 110(11):562-5. PubMed ID: 23596850 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The Utility of Multiplex Molecular Tests for Enteric Pathogens: a Micro-Comic Strip. McAdam AJ J Clin Microbiol; 2018 Feb; 56(2):. PubMed ID: 29367310 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. [Systematic reviews of studies of diagnostic test accuracy]. Moreno G G; Pantoja C T Rev Med Chil; 2009 Feb; 137(2):303-7. PubMed ID: 19543656 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Target practice: choosing target conditions for test accuracy studies that are relevant to clinical practice. Lord SJ; Staub LP; Bossuyt PM; Irwig LM BMJ; 2011 Sep; 343():d4684. PubMed ID: 21903693 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Clinical Inquiry: How do clinical prediction rules compare with joint fluid analysis in diagnosing gout? Westerfield KL; Mounsey A; Nashelsky J J Fam Pract; 2016 Nov; 65(11):835-847. PubMed ID: 28087872 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Insufficient studies of diagnostic cancer tests. Neither systematic review nor original studies come up to expectations]. Holmberg L Lakartidningen; 2007 Apr 25-May 1; 104(17):1308-9. PubMed ID: 17547275 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of diagnostic tests for infectious diseases: general principles. ; Banoo S; Bell D; Bossuyt P; Herring A; Mabey D; Poole F; Smith PG; Sriram N; Wongsrichanalai C; Linke R; O'Brien R; Perkins M Nat Rev Microbiol; 2008 Nov; 6(11 Suppl):S16-26. PubMed ID: 22745954 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. [Basic principles of diagnostic evaluation]. Cohen J; Dubos F; Bossuyt P; Chalumeau M; Levy C; Martinot A Arch Pediatr; 2015 May; 22(5 Suppl 1):186-7. PubMed ID: 26112584 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Relationships between statistical measures of agreement: sensitivity, specificity and kappa. Feuerman M; Miller AR J Eval Clin Pract; 2008 Oct; 14(5):930-3. PubMed ID: 19018927 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Sample size for diagnostic accuracy studies. Salmi LR; Michel P J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 Aug; 57(8):869-70; author reply 871-2. PubMed ID: 15485744 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. STARD statement: still room for improvement in the reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Bossuyt PM Radiology; 2008 Sep; 248(3):713-4. PubMed ID: 18710968 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The STARD initiative: a possible link to diagnostic accuracy and reduction in medical error. McQueen MJ Ann Clin Biochem; 2003 Jul; 40(Pt 4):307-8. PubMed ID: 12880531 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]