Literature DB >> 3512062

A framework for clinical evaluation of diagnostic technologies.

G H Guyatt, P X Tugwell, D H Feeny, R B Haynes, M Drummond.   

Abstract

Most new diagnostic technologies have not been adequately assessed to determine whether their application improves health. Comprehensive evaluation of diagnostic technologies includes establishing technologic capability and determining the range of possible uses, diagnostic accuracy, impact on the health care provider, therapeutic impact and impact on patient outcome. Guidelines to determine whether each of these criteria have been met adequately are presented. Diagnostic technologies should be disseminated only if they are less expensive, produce fewer untoward effects and are at least as accurate as existing methods, if they eliminate the need for other investigations without loss of accuracy, or if they lead to institution of effective therapy. Establishing patient benefit often requires a randomized controlled trial in which patients receive the new test or an alternative diagnostic strategy. Other study designs are logistically less difficult but may not provide accurate assessment of benefit. Rigorous assessment of diagnostic technologies is needed for efficient use of health care resources.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3512062      PMCID: PMC1490902     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  29 in total

1.  The value of lung cancer detection by six-monthly chest radiographs.

Authors:  G Z Brett
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  1968-07       Impact factor: 9.139

2.  A methodological framework for assessing health indices.

Authors:  B Kirshner; G Guyatt
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1985

3.  An evaluation of multiphasic screening on admission to hospital. Precis of a report to the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Authors:  T C Durbridge; F Edwards; R G Edwards; M Atkinson
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  1976-05-08       Impact factor: 7.738

4.  Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests.

Authors:  D F Ransohoff; A R Feinstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1978-10-26       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Computed tomography of the brain in patients with headache or temporal lobe epilepsy: findings and cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  G F Carrera; D E Gerson; J Schnur; B J McNeil
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  1977-04       Impact factor: 1.826

6.  Observations on the medical efficacy of computed tomography of the chest and abdomen.

Authors:  A H Robbins; R D Pugatch; S G Gerzof; L J Faling; W C Johnson; D H Sewell
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1978-07       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Cranial computed tomography in diagnosis and management of acute head trauma.

Authors:  R A Zimmerman; L T Bilaniuk; T Gennarelli; D Bruce; C Dolinskas; B Uzzell
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1978-07       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Combined use of leg scanning and impedance plethysmography in suspected venous thrombosis. An alternative to venography.

Authors:  R Hull; J Hirsh; D L Sackett; P Powers; A G Turpie; I Walker
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1977-06-30       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  A randomized trial of percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography with the Chiba needle versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for bile duct visualization in jaundice.

Authors:  E Elias; A N Hamlyn; S Jain; R G Long; J A Summerfield; R Dick; S Sherlock
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1976-09       Impact factor: 22.682

10.  Computerized cranial tomography. Effect on diagnostic and therapeutic plans.

Authors:  H V Fineberg; R Bauman; M Sosman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1977-07-18       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  26 in total

Review 1.  Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests.

Authors:  J J Deeks
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-07-21

Review 2.  Technology that will initiate future revolutionary changes in healthcare and the clinical laboratory.

Authors:  R M Nakamura
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.352

3.  Clinical genomic testing: getting it right.

Authors:  Pamela S Douglas; Geoffrey S Ginsburg
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 4.132

Review 4.  Comparative accuracy: assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways.

Authors:  Patrick M Bossuyt; Les Irwig; Jonathan Craig; Paul Glasziou
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-05-06

5.  Diagnosis of ventilator-acquired Pneumonia: Where Do We Go From Here?

Authors:  B Lynn Johnston; John M Conly
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis       Date:  2003-03

6.  Health technology assessment: principles, methods and current status.

Authors:  A Giovagnoni; L Bartolucci; A Manna; J Morbiducci; G Ascoli
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2009-04-14       Impact factor: 3.469

7.  Diagnostic performance of regional DTI-derived tensor metrics in glioblastoma multiforme: simultaneous evaluation of p, q, L, Cl, Cp, Cs, RA, RD, AD, mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy.

Authors:  David Cortez-Conradis; Rafael Favila; Keila Isaac-Olive; Manuel Martinez-Lopez; Camilo Rios; Ernesto Roldan-Valadez
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-10-21       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Assessing quality of a diagnostic test evaluation.

Authors:  C D Mulrow; W D Linn; M K Gaul; J A Pugh
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1989 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Is procalcitonin a marker of invasive bacterial infection in acute sickle-cell vaso-occlusive crisis?

Authors:  K Stankovic Stojanovic; O Steichen; F Lionnet; C Bachmeyer; I Lecomte; V Avellino; G Grateau; R Girot; G Lefevre
Journal:  Infection       Date:  2011-01-11       Impact factor: 3.553

10.  Framework to assess the effects of using patient-reported outcome measures in chronic care management.

Authors:  Maria-Jose Santana; David Feeny
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-12-07       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.