Accuracy of Periapical Radiography and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scans in Diagnosing Apical Periodontitis Using Histopathological Findings as a Gold Standard

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of two imaging methods in diagnosing apical periodontitis (AP) using histopathological findings as a gold standard. Methods: The periapex of 83 treated or untreated roots of dogs` teeth was examined using periapical radiography (PR), cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans, and histology. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and accuracy of PR and CBCT diagnosis were calculated. Results: PR detected AP in 71% of roots, a CBCT scan detected AP in 84%, and AP was histologically diagnosed in 93% (p = 0.001). Overall, sensitivity was 0.77 and 0.91 for PR and CBCT, respectively. Specificity was 1 for both. Negative predictive value was 0.25 and 0.46 for PR and CBCT, respectively. Positive predictive value was 1 for both. Diagnostic accuracy (true positives + true negatives) was 0.78 and 0.92 for PR and CBCT (p = 0.028), respectively. Conclusion: A CBCT scan was more sensitive in detecting AP compared with PR, which was more likely to miss AP when it was still present. (J Endod 2009;35:1009-1012)

Bayesian Estimation for Performance Measures of Two Diagnostic Tests in the Presence of Verification Bias

Sensitivity and specificity are measures that allow us to evaluate the performance of a diagnostic test. In practice, it is common to have situations where a proportion of selected individuals cannot have the real state of the disease verified, since the verification could be an invasive procedure, as occurs with biopsy. This happens, as a special case, in the diagnosis of prostate cancer, or in any other situation related to risks, that is, not practicable, nor ethical, or in situations with high cost. For this case, it is common to use diagnostic tests based only on the information of verified individuals. This procedure can lead to biased results or workup bias. In this paper, we introduce a Bayesian approach to estimate the sensitivity and the specificity for two diagnostic tests considering verified and unverified individuals, a result that generalizes the usual situation based on only one diagnostic test.

Comparing diagnostic tests with missing data

When missing data occur in studies designed to compare the accuracy of diagnostic tests, a common, though naive, practice is to base the comparison of sensitivity, specificity, as well as of positive and negative predictive values on some subset of the data that fits into methods implemented in standard statistical packages. Such methods are usually valid only under the strong missing completely at random (MCAR) assumption and may generate biased and less precise estimates. We review some models that use the dependence structure of the completely observed cases to incorporate the information of the partially categorized observations into the analysis and show how they may be fitted via a two-stage hybrid process involving maximum likelihood in the first stage and weighted least squares in the second. We indicate how computational subroutines written in R may be used to fit the proposed models and illustrate the different analysis strategies with observational data collected to compare the accuracy of three distinct non-invasive diagnostic methods for endometriosis. The results indicate that even when the MCAR assumption is plausible, the naive partial analyses should be avoided.