Critically Assessing the Literature for Evidence-Based Imaging: Understanding Error and Bias

Evidence-based imaging (EBI) requires the critical assessment and application of the best available evidence to patient imaging. Unfortunately, the published studies that comprise the available evidence are often limited by bias, small sample size, and methodological inadequacy. Further, the information provided in published reports may be insufficient to allow estimation of the quality of the research. Initiatives by journal editors to improve the reporting of research studies, including the CONSORT (1), STARD (2), SQUIRE (3), and others, provide useful guides but are incompletely implemented. The objective of this chapter is to summarize the common sources of error and bias in the imaging literature to guide the critical assessment required for EBI.

[1]  F Davidoff,et al.  Publication guidelines for quality improvement in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE project , 2008, Quality & Safety in Health Care.

[2]  C. Blackmore.  Critically assessing the radiology literature1 , 2004 .

[3]  S. Schneeweiss,et al.  Causation of Bias: The Episcope , 2001, Epidemiology.

[4]  A. Sasco,et al.  Bias in case-control studies of screening effectiveness. , 1996, American journal of epidemiology.

[5]  R. J. Hayes,et al.  Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. , 1995, JAMA.

[6]  M. Gardner,et al.  Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. , 1986, British medical journal.

[7]  D. Zurakowski,et al.  Introduction to evidence-based imaging. , 2003, Neuroimaging clinics of North America.

[8]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Do Physicians Understand Cancer Screening Statistics? A National Survey of Primary Care Physicians in the United States , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[9]  H. Welch,et al.  Screening for disease. , 1997, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  Teruhiko Terasawa,et al.  Systematic Review: Computed Tomography and Ultrasonography To Detect Acute Appendicitis in Adults and Adolescents , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[11]  B. McNeil,et al.  Assessment of radiologic tests: control of bias and other design considerations. , 1988, Radiology.

[12]  E. Gallagher.  p < 0.05: threshold for decerebrate genuflection. , 1999, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[13]  S. Hulley,et al.  Designing clinical research , 2013 .

[14]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. , 1999, JAMA.

[15]  P. Prorok,et al.  Evidence of a healthy volunteer effect in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial. , 2007, American journal of epidemiology.

[16]  W. Black.  How to evaluate the radiology literature. , 1990, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[17]  Conflicting evidence in lung cancer screening: randomized controlled trials versus case-control studies. , 2003, Lung cancer.

[18]  David Moher,et al.  Toward complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. , 2003, Academic radiology.

[19]  D Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. , 2001, Annals of internal medicine.

[20]  D. Haggstrom,et al.  All-cause mortality in randomized trials of cancer screening. , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[21]  T. Lang,et al.  How to Report Statistics in Medicine: Annotated Guidelines for Authors , 1997 .

[22]  D. Zurakowski,et al.  Measurement variability and confidence intervals in medicine: why should radiologists care? , 2003, Radiology.

[23]  G. Bepler,et al.  Screening for lung cancer. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  A R Feinstein,et al.  Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good. , 1995, JAMA.

[25]  A. Feinstein,et al.  Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. , 1978, The New England journal of medicine.

[26]  D. Haynor,et al.  The Clinical Efficacy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Neuroimaging , 1994, Annals of Internal Medicine.