Paul Glasziou, MB, BS, PhD; Les Irwig, MB, BCh, PhD; Jonathan J. Deeks, PhD
The evaluation of claims that a new diagnostic test is better than the current gold standard test is hindered by the lack of a perfect reference judge. However, this problem may be sidestepped by focusing on the clinical consequences of the decision rather than on estimation of accuracy. Consequences can be assessed by use of a â€œfair umpireâ€ test that is not perfect yet can discriminate between disease and nondisease cases and is not biased in favor of 1 test.
This article discusses 3 principles to aid judgments about the value of new tests. First, the consequences are best examined in cases with disagreement between the current and new tests. Second, resolving these disagreements requires a fair, but not necessarily perfect, umpire test. Finally, umpire tests include consequences, such as prognosis and response to treatment, as well as causal exposures and other test results.
Paul Glasziou, Les Irwig, Jonathan J. Deeks. When Should a New Test Become the Current Reference Standard?. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:816–821. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-149-11-200812020-00009
Download citation file:
Published: Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(11):816-821.
Emergency Medicine, Infectious Disease, Mycobacterial Infections, Prevention/Screening.
Results provided by:
Copyright © 2017 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.
Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704
Conditions of Use