
doi: 10.1373/49.3.433
pmid: 12600955
Abstract Background: ROC analysis is widely accepted to assess and compare diagnostic validity of laboratory tests. Within the last few years, many new ROC programs have become available but have not been systematically evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess different ROC programs regarding their ease of use, mathematical correctness, final output, and their compatibility with other graphics programs. Methods: Eight available programs running under Windows (AccuROC, Analyse-It, CMDT, GraphROC, MedCalc, mROC, ROCKIT, and SPSS) were evaluated. ROC analyses of prostate-specific antigen and related values were performed from a dataset of 928 men with prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia and corresponding subsets. Criteria such as data input, data output, and correctness and completeness of results were used to evaluate the practicability of the programs. Results: Although the programs produced equivalent results (areas under the curves and their characteristics), we observed deficiencies concerning input of data, processing of the output data, and completeness of the results. Analyse-It, AccuROC, and MedCalc exhibited good performance, but each program had different shortcomings. Only GraphROC could compare curves at a certain sensitivity or specificity cutoff. Conclusions: Adequate ROC analysis and ROC plotting cannot be performed with a single program. Analyse-It, AccuROC, and MedCalc can be recommended with certain limitations. Further improvements of the programs are necessary.
Male, ROC Curve, Area Under Curve, Prostatic Hyperplasia, Humans, Prostatic Neoplasms, Neural Networks, Computer, Prostate-Specific Antigen, Software
Male, ROC Curve, Area Under Curve, Prostatic Hyperplasia, Humans, Prostatic Neoplasms, Neural Networks, Computer, Prostate-Specific Antigen, Software
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 120 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
