Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Do we need randomised trials to evaluate diagnostic procedures?

  • Controversies—For
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Herder GJ, Verboom P, Smit EF, van Velthoven PC, van den Bergh JH, Colder CD, van Mansom I, van Mourik JC, Postmus PE, Teule GJ, Hoekstra OS. Practice, efficacy and cost of staging suspected non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study in two Dutch hospitals. Thorax 2002; 57:11–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hojgaard L. Are health technology assessments a reliable tool in the analysis of the clinical value of PET in oncology? Who audits the auditors? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30:637–641.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Valk PE. Randomized controlled trials are not appropriate for imaging technology evaluation. J Nucl Med 2000; 41:1125–1126.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dixon AK. Evidence-based diagnostic radiology. Lancet 1997; 350:509–512.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hunink MG, Krestin GP. Study design for concurrent development, assessment, and implementation of new diagnostic imaging technology. Radiology 2002; 222:604–614.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Byar DP, Simon RM, Friedewald WT, Schlesselman JJ, DeMets DL, Ellenberg JH, Gail MH, Ware JH. Randomized clinical trials. Perspectives on some recent ideas. N Engl J Med 1976; 295:74–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Canadian Lung Oncology Group. Investigation for mediastinal disease in patients with apparently operable lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 1995; 60:1382–1389.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Silvestri GA, Tanoue LT, Margolis ML, Barker J, Detterbeck F. The noninvasive staging of non-small cell lung cancer: the guidelines. Chest 2003; 123 (1 Suppl):147S–156S.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hoekstra CJ, Stroobants SG, Hoekstra OS, Vansteenkiste J, Biesma B, Schramel FJ, van Zandwijk N, van Tinteren H, Smit EF. The value of [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography in the selection of patients with stage IIIA-N2 non-small cell lung cancer for combined modality treatment. Lung Cancer 2003; 39:151–157.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pieterman RM, van Putten JW, Meuzelaar JJ, Mooyaart EL, Vaalburg W, Koeter GH, Fidler V, Pruim J, Groen HJ. Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography. N Engl J Med 2000; 343:254–261.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, Kamel EM, Korom S, Seifert B, von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:2500–2507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Steinert HC, Hauser M, Allemann F, Engel H, Berthold T, von Schulthess GK, Weder W. Non-small cell lung cancer: nodal staging with FDG-PET versus CT with correlative lymph node mapping and sampling. Radiology 1997; 202:441–446.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Freedman LS. Evaluating and comparing imaging techniques: a review and classification of study designs. Br J Radiol 1987; 60:1071–1081.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Toloza EM, Harpole L, McCrory DC. Noninvasive staging of non-small cell lung cancer: a review of the current evidence. Chest 2003; 123 (1 Suppl):137S–146S.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gould MK, Maclean CC, Kuschner WG, Rydzak CE, Owens DK. Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2001; 285:914–924.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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. Radiology 2003; 226:24–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gould MK, Sanders GD, Barnett PG, Rydzak CE, Maclean CC, McClellan MB, Owens DK. Cost-effectiveness of alternative management strategies for patients with solitary pulmonary nodules. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138:724–735.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Abel U, Koch A. The role of randomization in clinical studies: myths and beliefs. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52:487–497.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, van den Bergh JH, Schreurs AJ, Stallaert RA, van Velthoven PC, Comans EF, Diepenhorst FW, Verboom P, van Mourik JC, Postmus PE, Boers M, Teule GJ. Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS Multicentre Randomised Trial. Lancet 2002; 359:1388–1393.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, Van Steenweghen S, Thomas J, Vandenberghe P, Vanuytsel L, Bormans G, Balzarini J, Wolf-Peeters C, Mortelmans L, Verhoef G. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography (PET) with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) after first-line chemotherapy in Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: is [18F]FDG-PET a valid alternative to conventional diagnostic methods? J Clin Oncol 2001; 19:414–419.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Comprehensive Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Plesmanlaan 125, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    H. Van Tinteren

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine/Clinical PET Centre, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    O. S. Hoekstra

  3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    O. S. Hoekstra & M. Boers

Authors
  1. H. Van Tinteren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. O. S. Hoekstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Boers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Van Tinteren.

Additional information

The opinions expressed within the Controversies section represent the views of the authors only.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van Tinteren, H., Hoekstra, O.S. & Boers, M. Do we need randomised trials to evaluate diagnostic procedures?. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31, 129–131 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-003-1384-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-003-1384-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation