The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Efficacy of Diagnostic Imaging
Open accessAbstract
The authors discuss the assessment of the contribution of diagnostic imaging to the patient management process. A hierarchical model of efficacy is presented as an organizing structure for appraisal of the literature on efficacy of imaging. Demonstration of efficacy at each lower level in this hierarchy is logically necessary, but not sufficient, to assure efficacy at higher levels. Level 1 concerns technical quality of the images; Level 2 addresses diagnostic ac curacy, sensitivity, and specificity associated with interpretation of the images. Next, Level 3 focuses on whether the information produces change in the referring physician's diagnostic thinking. Such a change is a logical prerequisite for Level 4 efficacy, which concerns effect on the patient management plan. Level 5 efficacy studies measure (or compute) effect of the information on patient outcomes. Finally, at Level 6, analyses examine societal costs and benefits of a diagnostic imaging technology. The pioneering contributions of Dr. Lee B. Lusted in the study of diagnostic imaging efficacy are highlighted.
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
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41 · Cited by 3,215
Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2261021292 · Cited by 3,215
The case of the misleading funnel plot
Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Schmid, C. H., & Olkin, I. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7568.597 · Cited by 1,766
Fihn, S. D., Gardin, J. M., Abrams, J., Berra, K., Blankenship, J. C., Dallas, A. P., Douglas, P. S., Foody, J. M., Gerber, T. C., Hinderliter, A. L., et al. (2012) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0b013e318277d6a0 · Cited by 845
Thrall, J. H., Li, X., Li, Q., Cruz, C., Do, S., Dreyer, K., & Brink, J. (2018) · Journal of the American College of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2017.12.026 · Cited by 710
Metadata
- Authors
- Fryback, D. G., & Thornbury, J. R.
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1991-06
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 88-94
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-681X
- OpenAlex
- W2074884761
- Cited by
- 1,291
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: The Efficacy of Diagnostic Imaging. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0272989x9101100203
- The paper
- Fryback, D. G., & Thornbury, J. R. (1991). The Efficacy of Diagnostic Imaging. Medical Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x9101100203
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.
