Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2008

Open Access 01-12-2008 | Correspondence

Graphical presentation of diagnostic information

Authors: Penny F Whiting, Jonathan AC Sterne, Marie E Westwood, Lucas M Bachmann, Roger Harbord, Matthias Egger, Jonathan J Deeks

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Graphical displays of results allow researchers to summarise and communicate the key findings of their study. Diagnostic information should be presented in an easily interpretable way, which conveys both test characteristics (diagnostic accuracy) and the potential for use in clinical practice (predictive value).

Methods

We discuss the types of graphical display commonly encountered in primary diagnostic accuracy studies and systematic reviews of such studies, and systematically review the use of graphical displays in recent diagnostic primary studies and systematic reviews.

Results

We identified 57 primary studies and 49 systematic reviews. Fifty-six percent of primary studies and 53% of systematic reviews used graphical displays to present results. Dot-plot or box-and- whisker plots were the most commonly used graph in primary studies and were included in 22 (39%) studies. ROC plots were the most common type of plot included in systematic reviews and were included in 22 (45%) reviews. One primary study and five systematic reviews included a probability-modifying plot.

Conclusion

Graphical displays are currently underused in primary diagnostic accuracy studies and systematic reviews of such studies. Diagnostic accuracy studies need to include multiple types of graphic in order to provide both a detailed overview of the results (diagnostic accuracy) and to communicate information that can be used to inform clinical practice (predictive value). Work is required to improve graphical displays, to better communicate the utility of a test in clinical practice and the implications of test results for individual patients.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Wieand S, Gail MH, James BR, James KL: A Family of Nonparametric Statistics for Comparing Diagnostic Markers with Paired Or Unpaired Data. Biometrika. 1989, 76: 585-592. 10.1093/biomet/76.3.585.CrossRef Wieand S, Gail MH, James BR, James KL: A Family of Nonparametric Statistics for Comparing Diagnostic Markers with Paired Or Unpaired Data. Biometrika. 1989, 76: 585-592. 10.1093/biomet/76.3.585.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Armitage P, Berry G, Matthews JNS: Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 2002, Oxford, Blackwell Science Ltd, FourthCrossRef Armitage P, Berry G, Matthews JNS: Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 2002, Oxford, Blackwell Science Ltd, FourthCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Zweig MH, Campbell G: Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem. 1993, 39: 561-577.PubMed Zweig MH, Campbell G: Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem. 1993, 39: 561-577.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Cai T: Semi-parametric ROC regression analysis with placement values. Biostatistics. 2004, 5: 45-60. 10.1093/biostatistics/5.1.45.CrossRefPubMed Cai T: Semi-parametric ROC regression analysis with placement values. Biostatistics. 2004, 5: 45-60. 10.1093/biostatistics/5.1.45.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Wan S, Zhang B: Smooth semiparametric receiver operating characteristic curves for continuous diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 2007, 26: 2565-2586. 10.1002/sim.2726.CrossRefPubMed Wan S, Zhang B: Smooth semiparametric receiver operating characteristic curves for continuous diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 2007, 26: 2565-2586. 10.1002/sim.2726.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Zou KH, Hall WJ, Shapiro DE: Smooth non-parametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for continuous diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 1997, 16: 2143-2156. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19971015)16:19<2143::AID-SIM655>3.0.CO;2-3.CrossRefPubMed Zou KH, Hall WJ, Shapiro DE: Smooth non-parametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for continuous diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 1997, 16: 2143-2156. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19971015)16:19<2143::AID-SIM655>3.0.CO;2-3.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Reid MC, Lane DA, Feinstein AR: Academic calculations versus clinical judgments: practicing physicians' use of quantitative measures of test accuracy. Am J Med. 1998, 104: 374-380. 10.1016/S0002-9343(98)00054-0.CrossRefPubMed Reid MC, Lane DA, Feinstein AR: Academic calculations versus clinical judgments: practicing physicians' use of quantitative measures of test accuracy. Am J Med. 1998, 104: 374-380. 10.1016/S0002-9343(98)00054-0.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC: Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ. 2003, 326: 41-44. 10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC: Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ. 2003, 326: 41-44. 10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Whiting P, Westwood M, Bojke L, Palmer S, Richardson G, Cooper J, Watt I, Glanville J, Sculpher M, Kleijnen J: Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tests for the diagnosis and investigation of urinary tract infection in children: a systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess. 2006, 10: iii-xiii, 1.PubMed Whiting P, Westwood M, Bojke L, Palmer S, Richardson G, Cooper J, Watt I, Glanville J, Sculpher M, Kleijnen J: Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tests for the diagnosis and investigation of urinary tract infection in children: a systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess. 2006, 10: iii-xiii, 1.PubMed
12.
go back to reference Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B: Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993, 12: 1293-1316.CrossRefPubMed Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B: Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993, 12: 1293-1316.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA: A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med. 2001, 20: 2865-2884. 10.1002/sim.942.CrossRefPubMed Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA: A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med. 2001, 20: 2865-2884. 10.1002/sim.942.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH: Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58: 982-990. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022.CrossRefPubMed Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH: Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58: 982-990. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Macaskill P: Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004, 57: 925-932. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.12.019.CrossRefPubMed Macaskill P: Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004, 57: 925-932. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.12.019.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Whiting P, Harbord R, Main C, Deeks JJ, Filippini G, Egger M, Sterne JA: Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: systematic review. BMJ. 2006, 332: 875-884. 10.1136/bmj.38771.583796.7C.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Whiting P, Harbord R, Main C, Deeks JJ, Filippini G, Egger M, Sterne JA: Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: systematic review. BMJ. 2006, 332: 875-884. 10.1136/bmj.38771.583796.7C.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Baujat B, Mahe C, Pignon JP, Hill C: A graphical method for exploring heterogeneity in meta-analyses: application to a meta-analysis of 65 trials. Stat Med. 2002, 21: 2641-2652. 10.1002/sim.1221.CrossRefPubMed Baujat B, Mahe C, Pignon JP, Hill C: A graphical method for exploring heterogeneity in meta-analyses: application to a meta-analysis of 65 trials. Stat Med. 2002, 21: 2641-2652. 10.1002/sim.1221.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Galbraith RF: A note on graphical presentation of estimated odds ratios from several clinical trials. Stat Med. 1988, 7: 889-894. 10.1002/sim.4780070807.CrossRefPubMed Galbraith RF: A note on graphical presentation of estimated odds ratios from several clinical trials. Stat Med. 1988, 7: 889-894. 10.1002/sim.4780070807.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Light RJ, Pillemer DB: Summing up: the science of reviewing research. 1984, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press Light RJ, Pillemer DB: Summing up: the science of reviewing research. 1984, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press
20.
go back to reference Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L: The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58: 882-893. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016.CrossRefPubMed Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L: The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58: 882-893. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Sterne JA, Gavaghan D, Egger M: Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000, 53: 1119-1129. 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00242-0.CrossRefPubMed Sterne JA, Gavaghan D, Egger M: Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000, 53: 1119-1129. 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00242-0.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Bossuyt PMM, Kleijnen J: Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy - A systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2004, 140: 189-202.CrossRefPubMed Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Bossuyt PMM, Kleijnen J: Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy - A systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2004, 140: 189-202.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Young JM, Glasziou P, Ward JE: General practitioners' self ratings of skills in evidence based medicine: validation study. BMJ. 2002, 324: 950-951. 10.1136/bmj.324.7343.950.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Young JM, Glasziou P, Ward JE: General practitioners' self ratings of skills in evidence based medicine: validation study. BMJ. 2002, 324: 950-951. 10.1136/bmj.324.7343.950.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Casscells W, Schoenberger A, Graboys TB: Interpretation by physicians of clinical laboratory results. NEJM. 1978, 299: 999-1001.CrossRefPubMed Casscells W, Schoenberger A, Graboys TB: Interpretation by physicians of clinical laboratory results. NEJM. 1978, 299: 999-1001.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Eddy DM: Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: Probems and opportunities. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Edited by: Kahneman D, Slovic P and Tversky A. 1982, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Eddy DM: Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: Probems and opportunities. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Edited by: Kahneman D, Slovic P and Tversky A. 1982, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
27.
go back to reference Steurer J, Fischer JE, Bachmann LM, Koller M, ter Riet G: Communicating accuracy of tests to general practitioners: a controlled study. BMJ. 2002, 324: 824-826. 10.1136/bmj.324.7341.824.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Steurer J, Fischer JE, Bachmann LM, Koller M, ter Riet G: Communicating accuracy of tests to general practitioners: a controlled study. BMJ. 2002, 324: 824-826. 10.1136/bmj.324.7341.824.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
go back to reference Lyman GH, Balducci L: Overestimation of test effects in clinical judgment. J Cancer Educ. 1993, 8: 297-307.CrossRefPubMed Lyman GH, Balducci L: Overestimation of test effects in clinical judgment. J Cancer Educ. 1993, 8: 297-307.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Lyman GH, Balducci L: The effect of changing disease risk on clinical reasoning. J Gen Intern Med. 1994, 9: 488-495. 10.1007/BF02599218.CrossRefPubMed Lyman GH, Balducci L: The effect of changing disease risk on clinical reasoning. J Gen Intern Med. 1994, 9: 488-495. 10.1007/BF02599218.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PM, Heisterkamp SH: Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 2002, 21: 1525-1537. 10.1002/sim.1185.CrossRefPubMed Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PM, Heisterkamp SH: Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 2002, 21: 1525-1537. 10.1002/sim.1185.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM: The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003, 56: 1129-1135. 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00177-X.CrossRefPubMed Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM: The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003, 56: 1129-1135. 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00177-X.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Pepe MS, Janes H, Longton G, Leisenring W, Newcomb P: Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. Am J Epidemiol. 2004, 159: 882-890. 10.1093/aje/kwh101.CrossRefPubMed Pepe MS, Janes H, Longton G, Leisenring W, Newcomb P: Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. Am J Epidemiol. 2004, 159: 882-890. 10.1093/aje/kwh101.CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Hattori H, Kujiraoka T, Egashira T, Saito E, Fujioka T, Takahashi S, Ito M, Cooper JA, Stepanova IP, Nanjee MN, Miller NE: Association of Coronary Heart Disease with Pre-{beta}-HDL Concentrations in Japanese Men. Clin Chem. 2004, 50: 589-595. 10.1373/clinchem.2003.029207.CrossRefPubMed Hattori H, Kujiraoka T, Egashira T, Saito E, Fujioka T, Takahashi S, Ito M, Cooper JA, Stepanova IP, Nanjee MN, Miller NE: Association of Coronary Heart Disease with Pre-{beta}-HDL Concentrations in Japanese Men. Clin Chem. 2004, 50: 589-595. 10.1373/clinchem.2003.029207.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Graphical presentation of diagnostic information
Authors
Penny F Whiting
Jonathan AC Sterne
Marie E Westwood
Lucas M Bachmann
Roger Harbord
Matthias Egger
Jonathan J Deeks
Publication date
01-12-2008
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2008
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-20

Other articles of this Issue 1/2008

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2008 Go to the issue