June 2012, Volume 27, Issue 1 Supplement, pp 39-46,
Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Date: 31 May 2012
Chapter 6: Assessing Applicability of Medical Test Studies in Systematic Reviews
Use of medical tests should be guided by research evidence about the accuracy and utility of those tests in clinical care settings. Systematic reviews of the literature about medical tests must address applicability to real-world decision-making. Challenges for reviews include: (1) lack of clarity in key questions about the intended applicability of the review, (2) numerous studies in many populations and settings, (3) publications that provide too little information to assess applicability, (4) secular trends in prevalence and the spectrum of the condition for which the test is done, and (5) changes in the technology of the test itself. We describe principles for crafting reviews that meet these challenges and capture the key elements from the literature necessary to understand applicability.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). Methods guide for medical test reviews. Available at: http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/tasks/sites/ehc/assets/File/methods_guide_for_medical_tests.pdf. Accessed November 8, 2011.
Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality (US). Methods reference guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. Available at: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayProduct&productID=318. Accessed November 8, 2011.
Matcher DB. Introduction to the Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 2011; doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1798-2.
Samson D. Schoelles KM. Chapter 2: Medical Tests Guidance (2) Developing the Topic and Structuring Systematic Reviews of Medical Tests: Utility of PICOTS, Analytic Frameworks, Decision Trees, and Other Frameworks. J Gen Intern Med. 2012; doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2007-7.
American Psychiatric Association. Task Force on DSM-IV. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. 4th ed. Washington: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.
Hartmann KE, Hall SA, Nanda K, Boggess JF, Zolnoun D. Screening for cervical cancer. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/prevent/pdfser/cervcanser.pdf. Accessed November 8, 2011.
McCrory DC, Matchar DB, Bastian L, et al. Evaluation of cervical cytology. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 1999;5:1–6.
- Chapter 6: Assessing Applicability of Medical Test Studies in Systematic 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 39-46
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- systematic evidence review
- diagnostic test
- screening test
- prognostic test
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Vanderbilt AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
- 2. Institute for Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
- 6. Obstetrics & Gynecology and Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 600, Nashville, TN, 37203-8291, USA
- 3. Center for Clinical Health Policy Research, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
- 4. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
- 5. Center for Outcomes and Evidence, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, USA