The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
Revised Estimates of Diagnostic Test Sensitivity and Specificity in Suspected Biliary Tract Disease
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests for gallstones and acute cholecystitis. METHODS: All English-language articles published from 1966 through 1992 about tests used in the diagnosis of biliary tract disease were identified through MEDLINE. From 1614 titles, 666 abstracts were examined and 322 articles were read to identify 61 articles with information about sensitivity and specificity. Application of exclusion criteria based on clinical and methodologic criteria left 30 articles for analysis. Cluster-sampling methods were adapted to obtain combined estimates of sensitivities and specificities. Adjustments were made to estimates that were biased because the gold standard was applied preferentially to patients with positive test results. RESULTS: Ultrasound has the best unadjusted sensitivity (0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.95 to 0.99) and specificity (0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.00) for evaluating patients with suspected gallstones. Adjusted values are 0.84 (0.76 to 0.92) and 0.99 (0.97 to 1.00), respectively. Adjusted and unadjusted results for oral cholecystogram were lower. Radionuclide scanning has the best sensitivity (0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 0.98) and specificity (0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 0.95) for evaluating patients with suspected acute cholecystitis; test performance is unaffected by delayed imaging. Unadjusted sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound in evaluating patients with suspected acute cholecystitis are 0.94 (0.92 to 0.96) and 0.78 (0.61 to 0.96); adjusted values are 0.88 (0.74 to 1.00) and 0.80 (0.62 to 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound is superior to oral cholecystogram for diagnosing cholelithiasis, and radionuclide scanning is the test of choice for acute cholecystitis. However, sensitivities and specificities are somewhat lower than commonly reported. We recommend estimates that are midway between the adjusted and unadjusted values.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Assessing the Generalizability of Prognostic Information
Justice, A. C., Covinsky, K. E., & Berlin, J. A. (1999) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-130-6-199903160-00016 · Cited by 1,160
Lammert, F., Gurusamy, K., Ko, C. W., Miquel, J.-F., Méndez-Sánchez, N., Portincasa, P., van Erpecum, K. J., van Laarhoven, C. J., & Wang, D. Q.-H. (2016) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/nrdp.2016.24 · Cited by 822
Requirements for Minimum Sample Size for Sensitivity and Specificity Analysis
Bujang, M. A. (2016) · JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH · doi:10.7860/jcdr/2016/18129.8744 · Cited by 624
EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of gallstones
(2016) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2016.03.005 · Cited by 576
Metadata
- Authors
- Shea, J. A.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association
- Published
- 1994-11-28
- Volume
- 154
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 2573-2573
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2163253883
- Cited by
- 342
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Revised Estimates of Diagnostic Test Sensitivity and Specificity in Suspected Biliary Tract Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.154.22.2573
- The paper
- Shea, J. A. (1994). Revised Estimates of Diagnostic Test Sensitivity and Specificity in Suspected Biliary Tract Disease. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.154.22.2573
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.