Background-EndoscopicIn articles that compared EUS directly with incremental computed tomography, EUS performed better. None of the variables assessed in the regression analysis was significant using a Bonferroni correction. Three variables (anatomical location, traversability, and blinding) showed strong relationships for future research and validation. Conclusions-EUS is highly eVective for discrimination of stages T1 and T2 from stages T3 and T4 for primary gastrooesophageal carcinomas. The failure rate of EUS from non-traversability of a stenotic cancer may be a limitation in some patient groups. (Gut 2001;49:534-539)

Health Technology Assessment is indexed in Index Medicus/MEDLINE and Excerpta Medica/ EMBASE. Copies of the Executive Summaries are available from the NCCHTA website (see opposite).

The demand for evidence-based healthcare is increasing nationally and internationally and it is equally necessary in both diagnostic and therapeutic practice. Evidence may be collected and combined by means of a systematic literature review of published and unpublished data on a well-defined topic. The output of such reviews is then available to guide health policy, influence good practice or direct research. Published guidelines are available on the performance of systematic reviews, especially those of randomized controlled trials. Although there is an extensive literature base of research data in diagnostic imaging there are few such trials, but it is still possible to perform systematic reviews. With the alternative study designs encountered it is important to be aware of the main threats to study validity. In this paper the biases likely to be encountered in studies of diagnostic performance are reviewed, with particular reference to diagnostic imaging tests. The biases are sub-divided into three categories. The first category is patient selection and covers the validity of generalizing results beyond the study population. The other two, concerning study design and execution and the interpretation of results, affect the likely validity of the results of a study. An understanding of these factors is an essential prerequisite for those undertaking or using a systematic literature review in the field of diagnostic imaging. The definitions form the foundations of a defensible review protocol.

Health Technology Assessment is indexed in Index Medicus/MEDLINE and Excerpta Medica/ EMBASE. Copies of the Executive Summaries are available from the NCCHTA web site (see overleaf). NHS R&D HTA Programme T he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS. Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources. The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment. Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects. These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA). This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care. It was identified as a priority by the Diagnostics and Imaging Panel and funded as project number 94/44/03. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health. The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for the recommendations for policy contained herein. In particular, policy options in the area of screening will, in England, be considered by the National Screening Committee. This Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will take into account the views expressed here, further available evidence and other relevant considerations. Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.