Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5jtmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-04T23:30:38.532Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Repeated Testing: An Overview and Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Harold C. Sox
Harold C. Sox
Affiliation:
Dartmouth Medical School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Physicians often obtain the same test over and over again. This article first considers screening tests, such as mammographic screening for breast cancer, and describes several proposals for finding the interval that best balances cost, harms, and benefits. The same principles apply to monitoring a patient for recurrence of a disease, such as bladder cancer. The article closes with a theoretical consideration of the circumstances for repeating a test once to check a surprising value.

Information

Type
Special Section: The Use And Abuse Of Low-Cost Technologies
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , Fall 1997 , pp. 512 - 520
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1.Coley, C. M., Barry, M. J., Fleming, C., & Mulley, A. G.Early detection of prostate cancer, part I: Prior probability and effectiveness of tests. Annals of Internal Medicine 1997, 126, 394–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Dwyer, A. JPrewitt, J. M. S., Ecker, J. G., & Plunkett, J.Use of the hazard rate to schedule follow-up exam efficiently: An optimization approach to patient management. Medical Decision Making, 1983, 3, 229–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Eddy, D. M.Screening for cancer. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980.Google Scholar
4.Eddy, D. M.Screening for colorectal cancer. Annals of Intern Medicine, 1990, 113, 373–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Eddy, D. M. (ed.), Common screening tests, Philadelphia: American College Of Physicians, 1991.Google Scholar
6.Garber, A. M., Olshen, R. A., Zhang, H., & Venkatraman, E. S.Predicting high-risk cholesterol levels. International Statistical Review, 1994, 62, 203–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Kent, D. L., Nease, R. A., Sox, H. C., et al. Evaluation of nonlinear optimization for scheduling of follow-up cystoscopies to detect recurrent bladder cancer. Medical Decision Making, 1991, 11, 240–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Kent, D. L., Shachter, R., Sox, H. C., et al. Efficient scheduling of cystoscopies in monitoring for recurrent bladder cancer. Medical Decision Making, 1989, 9, 26–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Nathan, D. M., Singer, D. E., Jurxthal, K., & Goodson, J. D.The clinical information value of the glycosylated hemoglobin assay. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 310, 341–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Sox, H. C.Exercise testing in suspected coronary artery disease. Disease-A-Month, 1985, 12, 1–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Sox, H. C. Non-invasive tests for coronary artery disease. In Talley, J. D. (ed.), Costeffective diagnosis and treatment of coronary artery disease. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1997, 39–53.Google Scholar
12.Tierney, W. M., McDonald, C. J., Hui, R. L., & Martin, D. K.Computer predictions of abnormal test results: Effects on outpatient testing. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 1194–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed