Athina Tatsioni, MD; Deborah A. Zarin, MD; Naomi Aronson, PhD; David J. Samson, BA; Carole R. Flamm, MD, MPH; Christopher Schmid, PhD; Joseph Lau, MD
Diagnostic tests are critical components of effective health care. They help determine treatments that are most beneficial for a given patient. Their assessment is a complex process that includes such challenges as a dearth of studies that evaluate clinical outcomes and lack of data on use of the test in realistic clinical settings. The methodologic quality of studies of diagnostic tests also lags behind the qual ity of studies of therapeutic interventions. Statistical methods to combine diagnostic accuracy data are more complex and not as well developed, leading to difficulties in the interpretation of results. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Technology Assessment Program has adopted a 6-level framework for evaluating diagnostic technologies. The model emphasizes the need for systematic reviews of diagnostic test studies to go beyond the assessment of technical feasibility and accuracy to examine the impact of the test on health outcomes. In this paper, we use examples from 3 Evidence-based Practice Center reports to illustrate 3 challenges reviewers may face when reviewing diagnostic test literature: finding relevant studies, assessing methodologic quality of diagnostic accuracy studies, and synthesizing studies that evaluate tests in different patient populations or use different outcomes.
The sensitivity and specificity estimate of each study is plotted, along with the overall results obtained by combining the estimates independently using a random-effects model.
The position of the ellipse corresponds to the sensitivity and specificity reported in the individual study. The size of the ellipse is weighted according to the study size. The summary receiver-operating characteristic curve is limited to the range where data are available.
The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.
Tatsioni A, Zarin DA, Aronson N, Samson DJ, Flamm CR, Schmid C, et al. Challenges in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Technologies. Ann Intern Med. ;142:1048–1055. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-142-12_Part_2-200506211-00004
Download citation file:
Published: Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(12_Part_2):1048-1055.
Cardiology, Coronary Heart Disease, Emergency Medicine, Healthcare Delivery and Policy.
Results provided by:
Copyright © 2019 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.
Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704
Conditions of Use