Cargando…

Use of test accuracy study design labels in NICE’s diagnostic guidance

BACKGROUND: A variety of study designs are available to evaluate the accuracy of tests, but the terms used to describe these designs seem to lack clarity and standardization. We investigated if this was the case in the diagnostic guidance of the National Institute of Care and Health Excellence (NICE...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Olsen, M., Zhelev, Z., Hunt, H., Peters, J. L., Bossuyt, P., Hyde, C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6727490/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31517065
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-019-0062-9
_version_ 1783449260574900224
author Olsen, M.
Zhelev, Z.
Hunt, H.
Peters, J. L.
Bossuyt, P.
Hyde, C.
author_facet Olsen, M.
Zhelev, Z.
Hunt, H.
Peters, J. L.
Bossuyt, P.
Hyde, C.
author_sort Olsen, M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A variety of study designs are available to evaluate the accuracy of tests, but the terms used to describe these designs seem to lack clarity and standardization. We investigated if this was the case in the diagnostic guidance of the National Institute of Care and Health Excellence (NICE), an influential source of advice on the value of tests. OBJECTIVES: To describe the range of study design terms and labels used to distinguish study designs in NICE Diagnostic Guidance and the underlying evidence reports. METHODS: We carefully examined all NICE Diagnostic Guidance that has been developed from inception in 2011 until 2018 and the corresponding diagnostic assessment reports that summarized the evidence, focusing on guidance where tests were considered for diagnosis. We abstracted labels used to describe study designs and investigated what labels were used when studies were weighted differently because of their design (in terms of validity of evidence), in relevant sections. We made a descriptive analysis to assess the range of labels and also categorized labels by design features. RESULTS: From a total of 36 pieces of guidance, 20 (56%) were eligible and 17 (47%) were included in our analysis. We identified 53 unique design labels, of which 19 (36%) were specific to diagnostic test accuracy designs. These referred to a total of 12 study design features. Labels were used in assigning different weights to studies in seven of the reports (41%) but never in the guidance documents. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms a lack of clarity and standardization of test accuracy study design terms. There seems to be scope to reduce and harmonize the number of terms and still capture the design features that were deemed influential by those compiling the evidence reports. This should help decision makers in quickly identifying subgroups of included studies that should be weighted differently because their designs are more susceptible to bias. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s41512-019-0062-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6727490
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67274902019-09-12 Use of test accuracy study design labels in NICE’s diagnostic guidance Olsen, M. Zhelev, Z. Hunt, H. Peters, J. L. Bossuyt, P. Hyde, C. Diagn Progn Res Research BACKGROUND: A variety of study designs are available to evaluate the accuracy of tests, but the terms used to describe these designs seem to lack clarity and standardization. We investigated if this was the case in the diagnostic guidance of the National Institute of Care and Health Excellence (NICE), an influential source of advice on the value of tests. OBJECTIVES: To describe the range of study design terms and labels used to distinguish study designs in NICE Diagnostic Guidance and the underlying evidence reports. METHODS: We carefully examined all NICE Diagnostic Guidance that has been developed from inception in 2011 until 2018 and the corresponding diagnostic assessment reports that summarized the evidence, focusing on guidance where tests were considered for diagnosis. We abstracted labels used to describe study designs and investigated what labels were used when studies were weighted differently because of their design (in terms of validity of evidence), in relevant sections. We made a descriptive analysis to assess the range of labels and also categorized labels by design features. RESULTS: From a total of 36 pieces of guidance, 20 (56%) were eligible and 17 (47%) were included in our analysis. We identified 53 unique design labels, of which 19 (36%) were specific to diagnostic test accuracy designs. These referred to a total of 12 study design features. Labels were used in assigning different weights to studies in seven of the reports (41%) but never in the guidance documents. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms a lack of clarity and standardization of test accuracy study design terms. There seems to be scope to reduce and harmonize the number of terms and still capture the design features that were deemed influential by those compiling the evidence reports. This should help decision makers in quickly identifying subgroups of included studies that should be weighted differently because their designs are more susceptible to bias. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s41512-019-0062-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-09-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6727490/ /pubmed/31517065 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-019-0062-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Olsen, M.
Zhelev, Z.
Hunt, H.
Peters, J. L.
Bossuyt, P.
Hyde, C.
Use of test accuracy study design labels in NICE’s diagnostic guidance
title Use of test accuracy study design labels in NICE’s diagnostic guidance
title_full Use of test accuracy study design labels in NICE’s diagnostic guidance
title_fullStr Use of test accuracy study design labels in NICE’s diagnostic guidance
title_full_unstemmed Use of test accuracy study design labels in NICE’s diagnostic guidance
title_short Use of test accuracy study design labels in NICE’s diagnostic guidance
title_sort use of test accuracy study design labels in nice’s diagnostic guidance
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6727490/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31517065
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-019-0062-9
work_keys_str_mv AT olsenm useoftestaccuracystudydesignlabelsinnicesdiagnosticguidance
AT zhelevz useoftestaccuracystudydesignlabelsinnicesdiagnosticguidance
AT hunth useoftestaccuracystudydesignlabelsinnicesdiagnosticguidance
AT petersjl useoftestaccuracystudydesignlabelsinnicesdiagnosticguidance
AT bossuytp useoftestaccuracystudydesignlabelsinnicesdiagnosticguidance
AT hydec useoftestaccuracystudydesignlabelsinnicesdiagnosticguidance