Literature DB >> 12806556

Characteristics of good diagnostic studies.

Ben W Mol1, Jeroen G Lijmer, Johannes L H Evers, Patrick M M Bossuyt.   

Abstract

Whether or not patients are better off from undergoing a diagnostic test will depend on how test information is used to guide subsequent decisions on starting, stopping, or modifying treatment. Consequently, the practical value of a diagnostic test can only be assessed by taking into account subsequent health outcomes. In the appraisal of diagnostic test studies, it is essential to discriminate between studies that report on the accuracy of a diagnostic test and studies that report on health outcomes of strategies that incorporate diagnostic tests. In a study that reports on diagnostic accuracy, a cohort of patients is subjected to at least two diagnostic tests: the index test and the reference test, the latter usually being the best method available to detect the target condition. The accuracy of the index test can be expressed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, or likelihood ratios. Studies that compare two or more strategies that incorporate diagnostic tests as well as therapeutic interventions should be approached differently. Such studies do not require expression of test accuracy in terms of sensitivity and specificity. The merit of diagnostic tests evaluated in such studies can be expressed by comparing relevant outcomes of both strategies. The effectiveness of such strategies can be compared similarly as the effectiveness of treatment. However, due to the fact that the effect of a diagnostic test on health outcome is not as direct as the effect of treatment on health outcome, the design of outcome studies reporting on diagnostic tests requires special attention. It is important to establish a clear link between the result of the test under study and subsequent therapeutic management. Furthermore, trial efficiency can be improved by moving the point of randomization from the decision point, whether or not to test, to the point where a decision has to be made regarding what to do with the positive test results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12806556     DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-39991

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Reprod Med        ISSN: 1526-4564            Impact factor:   1.303


  7 in total

1.  Measurement properties of quality assessment tools for studies of diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  Mark A Kaizik; Alessandra N Garcia; Mark J Hancock; Robert D Herbert
Journal:  Braz J Phys Ther       Date:  2019-01-30       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Role of interferon-gamma release assays in the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in patients with advanced HIV infection.

Authors:  Adithya Cattamanchi; Isaac Ssewenyana; J Lucian Davis; Laurence Huang; William Worodria; Saskia den Boon; Samuel Yoo; Alfred Andama; Philip C Hopewell; Huyen Cao
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2010-03-20       Impact factor: 3.090

3.  Risk of thyroid cancer based on thyroid ultrasound imaging characteristics: results of a population-based study.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Paulette Lebda; Vickie A Feldstein; Dorra Sellami; Ruth B Goldstein; Natasha Brasic; Chengshi Jin; John Kornak
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 4.  Markers for the non-invasive diagnosis of mesothelioma: a systematic review.

Authors:  S van der Bij; E Schaake; H Koffijberg; J A Burgers; B A J M de Mol; K G M Moons
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-03-29       Impact factor: 7.640

5.  Center of excellence in research reporting in neurosurgery--diagnostic ontology.

Authors:  Amrapali Zaveri; Jatin Shah; Shreyasee Pradhan; Clarissa Rodrigues; Jacson Barros; Beng Ti Ang; Ricardo Pietrobon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-14       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Research waste in diagnostic trials: a methods review evaluating the reporting of test-treatment interventions.

Authors:  Lavinia Ferrante di Ruffano; Jacqueline Dinnes; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Clare Davenport; Chris Hyde; Jonathan J Deeks
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Intra- and inter-observer analysis in the morphological assessment of early-stage embryos.

Authors:  Goedele Paternot; Johanna Devroe; Sophie Debrock; Thomas M D'Hooghe; Carl Spiessens
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2009-09-29       Impact factor: 5.211

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.