Characteristics of Good Diagnostic Studies

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

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.

REFERENCES

• 1 Sackett D L, Rosenberg W M, Gray J A, Haynes R B, Richardson W S. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't.  BMJ . 1996;  312 56-57
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Mol B WJ, Hajenius P J, Engelsbel S. et al . Serum human chorionic gonadotrophin measurement in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy when transvaginal sonography is inconclusive.  Fertil Steril . 1998;  70 972-781
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Mol B WJ, Hajenius P J, Ankum W M, Van der Veen F, Bossuyt P MM. Screening for ectopic pregnancy in symptom-free women at increased risk.  Obstet Gynecol . 1997;  89 704-707
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Land J A, Evers J LH, Goossens V J. How to use Chlamydia antibody testing in subfertility patients?.  Hum Reprod . 1998;  13 1094-1098
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Lijmer J G, Mol B WJ, Heisterkamp S. et al . Empirical evidence of design-related bias in diagnostic studies.  JAMA . 1999;  282 1061-1066
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Mol B WJ, Bairam N, Lijmer J G. et al . The accuracy of CA-125 in the diagnosis of endometriosis: a meta-analysis.  Fertil Steril . 1998;  70 1101-1108
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Begg C B, Greenes R A. Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias.  Biometrics . 1983;  39 207-215
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Sackett D L. Users' guides to the medical literature III: how to use an article about a diagnostic test. A. Are the results of the study valid?.  JAMA . 1994;  271 703-707
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Pauker S G, Kassirer J P. The threshold approach to clinical decision making.  N Engl J Med . 1980;  302 1109-1117
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Weinstein M C, Fineberg H V, Elstein A S. et al .Clinical Decision Analysis. Philadelphia: WB Saunders 1980
  Google Scholar
• 11 Richardson W S, Detsky A S. Users' guides to the medical literature VII: how to use a clinical decision analysis. A. Are the results of the study valid?.  <~>Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA . 1995;  273 1292-1295
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Richardson W S, Detsky A S. Users' guides to the medical literature VII: how to use a clinical decision analysis. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients?.  <~>Evidence Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA . 1995;  273 1610-1613
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Oei S G, Helmerhorst F M, Bloemenkamp K W, Hollants F A, Meerpoel D E, Keirse M J. Effectiveness of the postcoital test: randomized controlled trial.  BMJ . 1998;  317 502-505
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Alfirevic Z, Neilson J P. Doppler ultrasonography in high-risk pregnancies: systematic review with meta-analysis.  Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1995;  172 1397-1387
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Van Loon J A, Mantingh A, Serlier E K, Kroon G, Mooyaart E L, Huisjes H J. Randomized controlled trial of magnetic resonance pelvimetry in breech presentation at term.  Lancet . 1997;  350 1799-1804
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Almstrom H, Axelsson O, Cnattingius S. et al . Comparison of umbilical artery velocimetry and cardiotocography for surveillance of small-for-gestational-age-fetuses.  Lancet . 1992;  340 936-940
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Bossuyt P MM, Lijmer J G, Mol B WJ. Randomized comparisons of medical tests: sometimes invalid, not always efficient.  Lancet . 2000;  356 1844-1847
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar