This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

David A. Nardone, MD
Oregon Health Sciences University Portland

JAMA. 1995;274(11):869.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—I read with interest the article by Dr Grayson and colleagues.¹ The authors appropriately offered a critique of prior studies, citing retrospective design, small numbers of patients, and lack of diagnostic criteria. However, they failed to discuss the limitations of their study. In an ideal study of contiguous osteomyelitis complicating pedal ulcers, each patient would have undergone both the index test (probing to bone) and the "gold" standard test (histologic diagnosis). The authors referred for histologic diagnoses only 46 (92%) of 50 patients with a positive probe test and only seven (27%) of 26 patients with a negative probe test. This represents test referral bias² whereby patients with a positive index test (probing to bone) are more likely to receive the criterion standard test (histologic diagnosis). As a result, both the true positives and false positives are overrepresented in the study sample. If the clinical . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Footnotes
Edited by Margaret A. Winker, MD, Senior Editor, and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, Senior Editor.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?