Cargando…

Chapter 7: Grading a Body of Evidence on Diagnostic Tests

INTRODUCTION: Grading the strength of a body of diagnostic test evidence involves challenges over and above those related to grading the evidence from health care intervention studies. This chapter identifies challenges and outlines principles for grading the body of evidence related to diagnostic t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Singh, Sonal, Chang, Stephanie M., Matchar, David B., Bass, Eric B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3364356/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22648675
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2021-9
_version_ 1782234527138054144
author Singh, Sonal
Chang, Stephanie M.
Matchar, David B.
Bass, Eric B.
author_facet Singh, Sonal
Chang, Stephanie M.
Matchar, David B.
Bass, Eric B.
author_sort Singh, Sonal
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Grading the strength of a body of diagnostic test evidence involves challenges over and above those related to grading the evidence from health care intervention studies. This chapter identifies challenges and outlines principles for grading the body of evidence related to diagnostic test performance. CHALLENGES: Diagnostic test evidence is challenging to grade because standard tools for grading evidence were designed for questions about treatment rather than diagnostic testing; and the clinical usefulness of a diagnostic test depends on multiple links in a chain of evidence connecting the performance of a test to changes in clinical outcomes. PRINCIPLES: Reviewers grading the strength of a body of evidence on diagnostic tests should consider the principle domains of risk of bias, directness, consistency, and precision, as well as publication bias, dose response association, plausible unmeasured confounders that would decrease an effect, and strength of association, similar to what is done to grade evidence on treatment interventions. Given that most evidence regarding the clinical value of diagnostic tests is indirect, an analytic framework must be developed to clarify the key questions, and strength of evidence for each link in that framework should be graded separately. However if reviewers choose to combine domains into a single grade of evidence, they should explain their rationale for a particular summary grade and the relevant domains that were weighed in assigning the summary grade.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3364356
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33643562012-06-11 Chapter 7: Grading a Body of Evidence on Diagnostic Tests Singh, Sonal Chang, Stephanie M. Matchar, David B. Bass, Eric B. J Gen Intern Med Original Research INTRODUCTION: Grading the strength of a body of diagnostic test evidence involves challenges over and above those related to grading the evidence from health care intervention studies. This chapter identifies challenges and outlines principles for grading the body of evidence related to diagnostic test performance. CHALLENGES: Diagnostic test evidence is challenging to grade because standard tools for grading evidence were designed for questions about treatment rather than diagnostic testing; and the clinical usefulness of a diagnostic test depends on multiple links in a chain of evidence connecting the performance of a test to changes in clinical outcomes. PRINCIPLES: Reviewers grading the strength of a body of evidence on diagnostic tests should consider the principle domains of risk of bias, directness, consistency, and precision, as well as publication bias, dose response association, plausible unmeasured confounders that would decrease an effect, and strength of association, similar to what is done to grade evidence on treatment interventions. Given that most evidence regarding the clinical value of diagnostic tests is indirect, an analytic framework must be developed to clarify the key questions, and strength of evidence for each link in that framework should be graded separately. However if reviewers choose to combine domains into a single grade of evidence, they should explain their rationale for a particular summary grade and the relevant domains that were weighed in assigning the summary grade. Springer-Verlag 2012-05-31 2012-06 /pmc/articles/PMC3364356/ /pubmed/22648675 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2021-9 Text en © Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) 2012
spellingShingle Original Research
Singh, Sonal
Chang, Stephanie M.
Matchar, David B.
Bass, Eric B.
Chapter 7: Grading a Body of Evidence on Diagnostic Tests
title Chapter 7: Grading a Body of Evidence on Diagnostic Tests
title_full Chapter 7: Grading a Body of Evidence on Diagnostic Tests
title_fullStr Chapter 7: Grading a Body of Evidence on Diagnostic Tests
title_full_unstemmed Chapter 7: Grading a Body of Evidence on Diagnostic Tests
title_short Chapter 7: Grading a Body of Evidence on Diagnostic Tests
title_sort chapter 7: grading a body of evidence on diagnostic tests
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3364356/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22648675
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2021-9
work_keys_str_mv AT singhsonal chapter7gradingabodyofevidenceondiagnostictests
AT changstephaniem chapter7gradingabodyofevidenceondiagnostictests
AT matchardavidb chapter7gradingabodyofevidenceondiagnostictests
AT bassericb chapter7gradingabodyofevidenceondiagnostictests