Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 60, Issue 11 , Pages 1116-1122 , November 2007

The evaluation of diagnostic tests: evidence on technical and diagnostic accuracy, impact on patient outcome and cost-effectiveness is needed

  • A. Van den Bruel

      Affiliations

    • Department of General Practice, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
    • Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, Brussels, Belgium
    • CEBAM, Belgian Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, Leuven, Belgium
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Ann Van den Bruel, Academic Centre of General Practice, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33 blok J, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Tel.: +32-16-33-74-90; fax: +32-16-33-74-80.
    • ,
  • I. Cleemput

      Affiliations

    • Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, Brussels, Belgium
    • ,
  • B. Aertgeerts

      Affiliations

    • Department of General Practice, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
    • CEBAM, Belgian Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, Leuven, Belgium
    • ,
  • D. Ramaekers

      Affiliations

    • Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, Brussels, Belgium
    • CEBAM, Belgian Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, Leuven, Belgium
    • ,
  • F. Buntinx

      Affiliations

    • Department of General Practice, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
    • Department of General Practice, Universiteit Maastricht, the Netherlands
    • CEBAM, Belgian Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, Leuven, Belgium

,Accepted 13 March 2007.

References 

  1. Knottnerus JA, van Weel C, Muris JW. Evaluation of diagnostic procedures. BMJ. 2002;324:477–480
  2. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, van der Meulen JH, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA. 1999;282:1061–1066
  3. Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Di Nisio M, Smidt N, van Rijn JC, Bossuyt PM. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. CMAJ. 2006;174:469–476
  4. Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Vandenbroucke JP, Glas AS, Bossuyt PM. Case-control and two-gate designs in diagnostic accuracy studies. Clin Chem. 2005;51:1335–1341
  5. Bossuyt PM, Irwig L, Craig J, Glasziou P. Comparative accuracy: assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways. BMJ. 2006;332:1089–1092
  6. Irwig LM, Bossuyt PM, Glasziou PP, Gatsonis CA, Lijmer JG. Designing studies to ensure that estimates of test accuracy will travel. In:  Knottnerus JA editors. The evidence base of clinical diagnosis. Boston: BMJ Books; 2002;p. 95–116
  7. Moons KG, Biesheuvel CJ, Grobbee DE. Test research versus diagnostic research. Clin Chem. 2004;50:473–476
  8. Sackett DL, Haynes RB. The architecture of diagnostic research. BMJ. 2002;324:539–541
  9. Knottnerus JA, Muris JW. Assessment of the accuracy of diagnostic tests: the cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:1118–1128
  10. Smidt N, Rutjes AW, van der Windt DA, Ostelo RW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, et al. Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology. 2005;235:347–353
  11. Reid MC, Lachs MS, Feinstein AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good. JAMA. 1995;274:645–651
  12. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ. 2003;326:41–44
  13. Deville WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, Montori VM, de Vet HC, van der Windt DA, et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002;2:9
  14. Leeflang MM, Scholten RJ, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM. Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:234–240
  15. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25
  16. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:189–202
  17. Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ. 2001;323:157–162
  18. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:982–990
  19. Ledley RS, Lusted LB. Reasoning foundations of medical diagnosis; symbolic logic, probability, and value theory aid our understanding of how physicians reason. Science. 1959;130:9–21
  20. Fineberg HV. Evaluation of computed tomography: achievement and challenge. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1978;131:1–4
  21. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:88–94
  22. Guyatt GH, Tugwell PX, Feeny DH, Haynes RB, Drummond M. A framework for clinical evaluation of diagnostic technologies. CMAJ. 1986;134:587–594
  23. Sunshine JH, Applegate KE. Technology assessment for radiologists. Radiology. 2004;230:309–314
  24. Gazelle GS, McMahon PM, Siebert U, Beinfeld MT. Cost-effectiveness analysis in the assessment of diagnostic imaging technologies. Radiology. 2005;235:361–370
  25. Cook DJ, Brun-Buisson C, Guyatt GH, Sibbald WJ. Evaluation of new diagnostic technologies: bronchoalveolar lavage and the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit Care Med. 1994;22:1314–1322
  26. Atkins D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Harbour RT, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II: pilot study of a new system. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005;5:25
  27. Hulstaert F, Van den Bruel A, Huybrechts M, Cleemput I, Bonneux L, Vernelen K, et al. Health Technology Assessment of molecular tests. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre; 2005;
  28. Bossuyt PM, Lijmer JG, Mol BW. Randomised comparisons of medical tests: sometimes invalid, not always efficient. Lancet. 2000;356:1844–1847
  29. Stanko LK, Jacobsohn E, Tam JW, De Wet CJ, Avidan M. Transthoracic echocardiography: impact on diagnosis and management in tertiary care intensive care units. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2005;33:492–496
  30. Blaivas M, Kuhn W, Reynolds B, Brannam L. Change in differential diagnosis and patient management with the use of portable ultrasound in a remote setting. Wilderness Environ Med. 2005;16:38–41
  31. Biesheuvel CJ, Grobbee DE, Moons KG. Distraction from randomization in diagnostic research. Ann Epidemiol. 2006;16:540–544
  32. Lord SJ, Irwig L, Simes RJ. When is measuring sensitivity and specificity sufficient to evaluate a diagnostic test, and when do we need randomized trials?. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:850–855
  33. Coleman RE, Laymon CM, Turkington TG. FDG imaging of lung nodules: a phantom study comparing SPECT, camera-based PET, and dedicated PET. Radiology. 1999;210:823–828
  34. NICE . Lung cancer: the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. Clinical guideline 24 NICE. 2005;Available at www.nice.org.uk
  35. Birim O, Kappetein AP, Stijnen T, Bogers AJ. Meta-analysis of positron emission tomographic and computed tomographic imaging in detecting mediastinal lymph node metastases in nonsmall cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79:375–382
  36. van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, van den Bergh JH, Schreurs AJ, Stallaert RA, et al. Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359:1388–1393
  37. Verboom P, van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, van den Bergh JH, Schreurs AJ, et al. PLUS study group Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET in staging non-small cell lung cancer: the PLUS study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:1444–1449

PII: S0895-4356(07)00145-X

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.015

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 60, Issue 11 , Pages 1116-1122 , November 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution