Wellington Martins - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Uploads
Papers by Wellington Martins
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2014
To examine the quality of the methods and accuracy of the interpretation from the existing studie... more To examine the quality of the methods and accuracy of the interpretation from the existing studies examining the reliability of ultrasound measurements and judgments in obstetrics and gynecology. We performed a systematic review in MEDLINE on Mar-25-2014 searching for studies examining reliability of ultrasound measurements and judgments in obstetrics and gynecology that evaluate concordance (CCC) or intraclass (ICC) correlation coefficients or kappa as one main objective. We examined 733 records on the basis of title and abstract; 141 full text articles were completely examined for eligibility. We excluded 29 studies because they did not report CCC/ICC/Kappa and 112 studies were included in our analysis. Two studies reported both ICC and Kappa and were counted twice; therefore, the number used as denominator in the analyses was 114. Only 16/114 studies (14%) were considered to be well-designed (independent acquisition and blinded analysis) and to have properly interpreted the results. Most of the problems are likely to overestimate the reliability of the examined method. The great majority of the published studies have important flaws in design, interpretation, and/or report. Such problems are important as they might cause a false confidence in the existing measurements and judgments, jeopardizing clinical practice and future research. Physicians and patients might use misleading information when choosing the best diagnostic test; moreover they can assume diagnosis or take clinically important decisions, as surgeries, based on the result of unreliable methods. Researchers can spend a lot of resources in studies examining unreliable methods for either the diagnosis or the prediction of a disease; additionally they might postpone or have a reduced interest in new studies examining the impact of technical refinements aiming to improve the reliability of a method. Specific guidelines aiming to improve the quality of reproducibility studies examining ultrasound methods should be encouraged.
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2011
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2011
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2011
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2011
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2010
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2010
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2010
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2010
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2010
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2010
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2010
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2011
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2011
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2011
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2009
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2010
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2010
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2014
To examine the quality of the methods and accuracy of the interpretation from the existing studie... more To examine the quality of the methods and accuracy of the interpretation from the existing studies examining the reliability of ultrasound measurements and judgments in obstetrics and gynecology. We performed a systematic review in MEDLINE on Mar-25-2014 searching for studies examining reliability of ultrasound measurements and judgments in obstetrics and gynecology that evaluate concordance (CCC) or intraclass (ICC) correlation coefficients or kappa as one main objective. We examined 733 records on the basis of title and abstract; 141 full text articles were completely examined for eligibility. We excluded 29 studies because they did not report CCC/ICC/Kappa and 112 studies were included in our analysis. Two studies reported both ICC and Kappa and were counted twice; therefore, the number used as denominator in the analyses was 114. Only 16/114 studies (14%) were considered to be well-designed (independent acquisition and blinded analysis) and to have properly interpreted the results. Most of the problems are likely to overestimate the reliability of the examined method. The great majority of the published studies have important flaws in design, interpretation, and/or report. Such problems are important as they might cause a false confidence in the existing measurements and judgments, jeopardizing clinical practice and future research. Physicians and patients might use misleading information when choosing the best diagnostic test; moreover they can assume diagnosis or take clinically important decisions, as surgeries, based on the result of unreliable methods. Researchers can spend a lot of resources in studies examining unreliable methods for either the diagnosis or the prediction of a disease; additionally they might postpone or have a reduced interest in new studies examining the impact of technical refinements aiming to improve the reliability of a method. Specific guidelines aiming to improve the quality of reproducibility studies examining ultrasound methods should be encouraged.
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2011
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2011
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2011
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2011
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2010
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2010
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2010
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2010
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2010
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2010
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2010
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2011
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2011
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2011
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2009
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2010
Experts in Ultrasound: Reviews and Perspectives, 2010