Chapter 1: Introduction to the Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews
- David B. Matchar MD, FACP, FAHA
- … show all 1 hide
Evaluation of medical tests presents challenges distinct from those involved in the evaluation of therapies; in particular, the very great importance of context and the dearth of comprehensive RCTs aimed at comparing the clinical outcomes of different tests and test strategies. Available guidance provides some suggestions: 1) Use of the PICOTS typology for clarifying the context relevant to the review, and 2) use of an organizing framework for classifying the types of medical test evaluation studies and their relationship to potential key questions. However, there is a diversity of recommendations for reviewers of medical tests and a proliferation of concepts, terms, and methods. As a contribution to the field, this Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews seeks to provide practical guidance for achieving the goals of clarity, consistency, tractability, and usefulness.
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available at: http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&productid=318. Accessed September 20, 2010.
- Siebert U. When should decision analytic modeling be used in the economic evaluation of health care? Eur J Health Econ. 2003;4(3):143–50. CrossRef
- Tatsioni A, Zarin DA, Aronson N, et al. Challenges in systematic reviews of diagnostic technologies. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(12 Pt 2):1048–55.
- Bossuyt PM, Lijmer JG, Mol BW. Randomised comparisons of medical tests: sometimes invalid, not always efficient. Lancet. 2000;356:1844–7. CrossRef
- Lord SJ, Irwig L, Simes J. When is measuring sensitivity and specificity sufficient to evaluate a diagnostic test, and when do we need a randomized trial? Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(11):850–5.
- Lijmer JG, Leeflang M, Bossuyt PM. Proposals for a phased evaluation of medical tests. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(5):E13–21. CrossRef
- Lord SJ, Irwig L, Bossuyt PM. Using the principles of randomized controlled trial design to guide test evaluation. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(5):E1–E12. CrossRef
- Sun F, Bruening W, Erinoff E, et al. Evaluation frameworks, analytic validity and quality rating of genetic tests. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment (Prepared by the ECRI Institute Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. HHSA 290-2007-10063-I.) AHRQ Publication. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. In press.
- Green DM, Swets JA. Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley; 1966. Reprinted with corrections and an updated topical bibliography by Peninsula Publishing, Los Altos, CA, 1988.
- Ledley RS, Lusted LB. Reasoning foundations of medical diagnosis. Science. 1959;130:9–21. CrossRef
- Yerushalmy J. Statistical problems in assessing methods of medical diagnosis, with special reference to x-ray techniques. Public Health Rep. 1947;62:1432–49. CrossRef
- Battista RN, Fletcher SW. Making recommendations on preventive practices: methodological issues. In: Battista RN, Lawrence RS, editors. Implementing Preventive Services. Suppl to Am J Prev Med. 1988;4(4):53–67. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- Bravata DM, McDonald KM, Shojania KG, Sundaram V, Owens DK. Challenges in systematic reviews: synthesis of topics related to the delivery, organization, and financing of health care. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(Suppl):1056–1065.
- Mulrow CM, Langhorne P, Grimshaw J. Integrating heterogeneous pieces of evidence in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(11):989–995.
- Whitlock EP, Orleans T, Pender N, Allan J. Evaluating primary care behavioral counseling interventions: an evidence-based approach. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22(4):267–284. CrossRef
- Woolf SH. Interim manual for clinical practice guideline development: a protocol for expert panels convened by the office of the forum for quality and effectiveness in health care. AHRQ Publication No. 91–0018. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1991.
- Woolf SH. An organized analytic framework for practice guideline development: using the analytic logic as a guide for reviewing evidence, developing recommendations, and explaining the rationale. In: McCormick KA, Moore SR, Siegel RA, editors. Methodology perspectives: clinical practice guideline development. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1994. p. 105–13.
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Procedure Manual. AHRQ Publication No. 08-05118-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; July 2008. p. 22–4. Available at: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf08/methods/procmanual.htm. Accessed June 15, 2011.
- O’Connor D, Green S, Higgins J. Chapter 5: Defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors, Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Intervention. Version 5.0.1 (updated September 2008). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed July 12, 2010.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Office of Public Health Genomics. ACCE Model Process for Evaluating Genetic Tests. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/gtesting/ACCE/index.htm. Accessed July 16, 2010.
- National Office of Public Health Genomics. ACCE: a CDC-sponsored project carried out by the Foundation of Blood Research [Internet]. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); 2007 Dec 11.
- Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making. 1991;11(2):88–94. CrossRef
- Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, et al. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(3 Suppl):21–35. CrossRef
- Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25(1):12–37. CrossRef
- Chapter 1: Introduction to the Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews
- Open Access
- Available under Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Volume 27, Issue 1 Supplement, pp 4-10
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- medical test
- test evaluation
- Industry Sectors
- David B. Matchar MD, FACP, FAHA (1) (2)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School Singapore, 8 College Road, Singapore, Singapore, 169857
- 2. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA