A clinical trial of the efficacy of a contrast agent used with a diagnostic procedure may present design and analysis issues that need to be considered and managed. Choice of primary variable and summary measures, multiple evaluations on each patient for the primary efficacy analysis (multiplicity), and uninterpretable or nonassessable images or regions of interest in images are three specific concerns discussed. Several methods are presented that should be considered for handling some of these issues.
US Food and Drug Administration.Guidance for Industry, Developing Medical Imaging Drug and Biological Products, Part 3: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation of Clinical Studies. June 2004:13–18.
7.
BeggCB. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med.1987; 6:411–423.
8.
DelongEDelongDClarke-PearsonD. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics.1988; 44:837–845.
9.
HanleyJAMcNeilBJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology.1982; 143:129–133.
10.
LehrRGPongA. ROC curves. In Encyclopedia of Bio-pharmaceutical Statistics.New York: Marcel Dekker; 2003.
11.
MetzCE. ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol.1986; 21:720–733.
12.
NewcombeRG. Simultaneous comparison of sensitivity and specificity of two tests in the paired design: a straightforward graphical approach. Stat Med.1999; 20:907–915.
13.
ZhouX-HObuchowskiNAMcClishDK. Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine.New York: Wiley; 2002.
14.
EliasziwMDonnerA. Application of the McNemar test to non-independent matched pair data. Stat Med.1991; 10:1981–1991.
15.
ShoukriMEdgeV. Statistical Methods for the Health Sciences.Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1996:65–82.
16.
ZegerSLLiangK-Y. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics.1986; 42:121–130.
17.
BeggCB. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med.1987; 6:411–423.
18.
BeggCBGreenesRAIglewiczB. The influence of uninterpretability on the assessment of diagnostic tests. J Chronic Dis.1986; 39:575–584.
19.
PoynardTChaputJ-CEtienneJ-P. Relations between effectiveness of a diagnostic test, prevalence of the disease, and percentages of uninterpretable results. Med Decis Making.1981;2:3.
20.
SchuijfJDBaxJJJukemaJWNoninvasive angiography and assessment of left ventricular function using multislice computed tomography in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care.2004; 27:12.
21.
SimelDLFeussnerJRDeLongERMatcharDB. Intermediate, indeterminate, and uninterpretable diagnostic test results. Med Decis Making.1987; 7: 107–114.
