Use of “Diagnostic Yield” in Imaging Research Reports:Results from Articles Published in Two General Radiology Journals
- Author:
Ho Young PARK
1
;
Chong Hyun SUH
;
Seon-Ok KIM
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:Korean Journal of Radiology 2022;23(12):1290-1300
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Objective:“Diagnostic yield,” also referred to as the detection rate, is a parameter positioned between diagnostic accuracy and diagnosis-related patient outcomes in research studies that assess diagnostic tests. Unfamiliarity with the term may lead to incorrect usage and delivery of information. Herein, we evaluate the level of proper use of the term “diagnostic yield” and its related parameters in articles published in Radiology and Korean Journal of Radiology (KJR).
Materials and Methods:Potentially relevant articles published since 2012 in these journals were identified using MEDLINE and PubMed Central databases. The initial search yielded 239 articles. We evaluated whether the correct definition and study setting of “diagnostic yield” or “detection rate” were used and whether the articles also reported companion parameters for false-positive results. We calculated the proportion of articles that correctly used these parameters and evaluated whether the proportion increased with time (2012–2016 vs. 2017–2022).
Results:Among 39 eligible articles (19 from Radiology and 20 from KJR), 17 (43.6%; 11 from Radiology and 6 from KJR) correctly defined “diagnostic yield” or “detection rate.” The remaining 22 articles used “diagnostic yield” or “detection rate” with incorrect meanings such as “diagnostic performance” or “sensitivity.” The proportion of correctly used diagnostic terms was higher in the studies published in Radiology than in those published in KJR (57.9% vs. 30.0%). The proportion improved with time in Radiology (33.3% vs. 80.0%), whereas no improvement was observed in KJR over time (33.3% vs. 27.3%). The proportion of studies reporting companion parameters was similar between journals (72.7% vs. 66.7%), and no considerable improvement was observed over time.
Conclusion:Overall, a minority of articles accurately used “diagnostic yield” or “detection rate.” Incorrect usage of the terms was more frequent without improvement over time in KJR than in Radiology. Therefore, improvements are required in the use and reporting of these parameters.
