M M G Leeflang1, F Allerberger2. 1. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: m.m.leeflang@amc.uva.nl. 2. Division of Public Health, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The development of an in vitro diagnostic test from a good idea to a clinically relevant tool takes several steps, with more stringent requirements at every step. OBJECTIVES: This article aims to summarize the necessary questions to be asked about a test and to illustrate study designs answering these questions. We also aim to relate Regulation (EU) 2017/746 to the needs of evidence-based diagnostic testing, where applicable. SOURCES: We used literature on evidence-based diagnostics, a text book on clinical trials in the development and marketing of medical devices and the English version of Regulation 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council on in vitro diagnostic medical devices. CONTENT: The combination of different test uses and different stages of development determine the required test characteristics and suitability of study designs. In an earlier stage of test development it may be crucial to know whether a test can differentiate diseased persons from healthy controls, although this tells us little about how a test will perform in practice. Later stages focus on the diagnostic accuracy of a test in a clinically relevant situation. However, a test that perfectly distinguishes between patients with and without a certain condition may still have little effect on patient outcomes. Therefore, randomized controlled trials of testing may be needed, as well as post-marketing monitoring. IMPLICATIONS: Both researchers and users of tests need to be aware of the limitations of diagnostic test accuracy and realize that accuracy is only indirectly linked to people's health status.
BACKGROUND: The development of an in vitro diagnostic test from a good idea to a clinically relevant tool takes several steps, with more stringent requirements at every step. OBJECTIVES: This article aims to summarize the necessary questions to be asked about a test and to illustrate study designs answering these questions. We also aim to relate Regulation (EU) 2017/746 to the needs of evidence-based diagnostic testing, where applicable. SOURCES: We used literature on evidence-based diagnostics, a text book on clinical trials in the development and marketing of medical devices and the English version of Regulation 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council on in vitro diagnostic medical devices. CONTENT: The combination of different test uses and different stages of development determine the required test characteristics and suitability of study designs. In an earlier stage of test development it may be crucial to know whether a test can differentiate diseased persons from healthy controls, although this tells us little about how a test will perform in practice. Later stages focus on the diagnostic accuracy of a test in a clinically relevant situation. However, a test that perfectly distinguishes between patients with and without a certain condition may still have little effect on patient outcomes. Therefore, randomized controlled trials of testing may be needed, as well as post-marketing monitoring. IMPLICATIONS: Both researchers and users of tests need to be aware of the limitations of diagnostic test accuracy and realize that accuracy is only indirectly linked to people's health status.
Authors: Marcela Krutova; Ales Briksi; Jan Tkadlec; Miroslav Zajac; Jana Matejkova; Otakar Nyc; Pavel Drevinek Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Alexandra Martín Ramírez; Marta Lanza Suárez; Carlota Muñoz García; Shamilah R Hisam; Ana Perez-Ayala; José M Rubio Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 3.707
Authors: L Leibovici; F Allerberger; M Cevik; A Huttner; M Paul; J Rodríguez-Baño; L Scudeller Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Bih H Chendi; Candice I Snyders; Kristian Tonby; Synne Jenum; Martin Kidd; Gerhard Walzl; Novel N Chegou; Anne M Dyrhol-Riise Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Caroline Rick; Sue Mallett; James Brown; Ryan Ottridge; Andrew Palmer; Victoria Parker; Lee Priest; Jonathan J Deeks Journal: Trials Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 2.279