Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How to perform a critical appraisal of diagnostic tests: 7 steps

  • Review
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The critically appraised topic (CAT) is a format in evidence-based practice for sharing information. A CAT is a standardized way of summarizing the most current research evidence focused on a pertinent clinical question. Its aim is to provide both a critique of the most up-to-date retrieved research and an indication of the clinical relevance of results. A clinical question is initially generated following a patient encounter, which leads to and directs a literature search to answer the clinical question. Studies obtained from the literature search are assigned a level of evidence. This allows the most valid and relevant articles to be selected and to be critically appraised. The results are summarized, and this information is translated into clinically useful procedures and processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dawes M (2005) Critically appraised topics and evidence-based medicine journals. Singap Med J 46:442–448, quiz 449

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Fetters L, Figueiredo EM, Keane-Miller D et al (2004) Critically appraised topics. Pediatr Phys Ther 16:19–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wendt O (2006) Developing critically appraised topics (CATs). Presented at the American Speech-Language Hearing Association, division 12: augmentative and alternative communication (DAAC), 7th annual conference, San Antonio. http://www.edst.purdue.edu/aac/Developing%20Critically%20Appraised%20Topics.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2014

  4. Razavi SA, Sadigh G, Kelly AM et al (2012) Comparative effectiveness of imaging modalities for the diagnosis of upper and lower urinary tract malignancy: a critically appraised topic. Acad Radiol 19:1134–1140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sadigh G, Applegate KE, Baumgarten DA (2014) Comparative accuracy of intravenous contrast-enhanced CT versus noncontrast CT plus intravenous contrast-enhanced CT in the detection and characterization of patients with hypervascular liver metastases: a critically appraised topic. Acad Radiol 21:113–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Glasziou P, Del Mar C, Salisbury J (2007) EBP Step 1: formulate an answerable question. In: Evidence-based practice workbook, 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 21–34

  7. Staunton M (2007) Evidence-based radiology: steps 1 and 2—asking answerable questions and searching for evidence. Radiology 242:23–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Feussner JR, Matchar DB (1988) When and how to study the carotid arteries. Ann Int Med 109:805–818

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Haynes RB (2001) Of studies, summaries, synopses, and systems: the ‘4S’ evolution of services for finding current best evidence. Evid Based Ment Health 4:37–39

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Haynes RB (2000) Wolters Kluwer Ovid SP. Medline. http://gateway.ovid.com/. Accessed 29 June 2009

  11. Haynes RB (2014) Google and Google Scholar Beta search engines. http://www.google.com/ and http://scholar.google.com/. Accessed 29 June 2009

  12. Haynes RB (2014) NCBI Pubmed Web site. U.S. National Library of Medicine. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed. Accessed 3 May 2010

  13. Haynes RB (2014) ISI Web of Knowledge Web site. Thomson Reuters. www.isiknowledge.com. Accessed 3 May 2010

  14. Haynes RB (2014) MD Consult Web site. Elsevier. www.mdconsult.com. Accessed 3 May 2010

  15. Haynes RB (2014) EMBASE. EMBASE biomedical answers Web site. Elsevier. http://www.embase.com/home. Accessed 3 May 2010

  16. Haynes RB (2014) ARRS GoldMiner. Biomedical images database. goldminer.arrs.org/about.php. Accessed 17 July 2014

  17. Haynes RB (2014) Yottalook Web site. Yottalook medical image search engine. http://www.yottalook.com/index_web.php. Accessed 29 September 2014

  18. Haynes RB (2014) The Cochrane Collaboration Web site. The Cochrane Library. http://www.cochrane.org. Accessed 3 May 2010

  19. Haynes RB (2014) Cochrane central register of controlled clinical trials. The Cochrane Library. www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/cochrane_clcentral_articles_fs.html. Accessed 30 June 2014

  20. Haynes RB (2014) Database of abstracts of reviews of effects. The Cochrane Library. www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/cochrane_cldare_articles_fs.html. Accessed 30 June 2014

  21. Haynes RB (2014) NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Web site. http://www.nice.org.uk/. Accessed 30 June 2009

  22. Haynes RB (2014) Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). http://www.sign.ac.uk/. Accessed 30 June 2009

  23. Haynes RB (2014) National Guidelines Clearinghouse (NGC). U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. http://www.guideline.gov/. Accessed 17 Dec 2010

  24. Haynes RB (2011) National Library for Health (NLH) Web site. The National Archives. www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/resources/systserv/national. Accessed 29 June 2014

  25. Kelly AM (2009) Evidence-based radiology: step 2—searching the literature (search). Semin Roentgenol 44:147–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kelly AM (1994) Bandolier electronic journal. http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/aboutus.html. Accessed 1 July 2009

  27. Kelly AM (2014) UpToDate Online. Wolters Kluwer Health. http://www.uptodate.com/home/index.html. Accessed 1 July 2009

  28. Kelly AM (2014) DynaMed clinical reference tool. EBSCO. http://www.ebscohost.com/dynamed/. Accessed 1 July 2009

  29. Kelly AM (2014) Evidence-Based Medicine. BMJ Publishing Group. http://ebm.bmj.com/. Accessed 1 July 2009

  30. Kelly AM (2013) ACP Journal Club Web site. American College of Physicians. http://www.acpjc.org. Accessed 3 May 2010

  31. Kelly AM (2014) ClinicalEvidence Web site. BMJ Publishing Group. http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/index.jsp. Accessed 3 May 2010

  32. Kelly AM (1997) TRIP database. http://www.tripdatabase.com. Accessed 3 May 2010

  33. Kelly AM (2014) ACP Smart Medicine. American College of Physicians. pier.acponline.org/index.html. Accessed 29 June 2014

  34. Sadigh G, Parker R, Kelly AM et al (2012) How to write a critically appraised topic (CAT). Acad Radiol 19:872–888

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kelly AM, Cronin P (2011) How to perform a critically appraised topic: part 1, ask, search, and apply. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:1039–1047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kelly AM, Cronin P (2014) Levels of evidence (March 2009). Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025. Accessed 3 May 2010

  37. Dodd JD (2007) Evidence-based practice in radiology: steps 3 and 4—appraise and apply diagnostic radiology literature. Radiology 242:342–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA et al (2009) AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 62:1013–1020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA et al (2014) The AGREE Collaboration. Appraisal of guidelines for research & evaluation (AGREE) instrument. www.agreecollaboration.org. Accessed 25 Feb 2011

  40. Dans AL, Dans LF (2010) Appraising a tool for guideline appraisal (the AGREE II instrument). J Clin Epidemiol 63:1281–1282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB et al (2003) The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 3:25

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Maceneaney PM, Malone DE (2000) The meaning of diagnostic test results: a spreadsheet for swift data analysis. Clin Radiol 55:227–235

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Cronin P (2009) Evidence-based radiology: step 3—critical appraisal of diagnostic literature. Semin Roentgenol 44:158–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Fagan TJ (2014) Grade definitions. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/grades.htm. Accessed 31 July 2014

  45. Kelly AM, Cronin P (2011) How to perform a critically appraised topic: part 2, appraise, evaluate, generate, and recommend. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:1048–1055

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kelly AM, Cronin P (2014) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality clinical practice guidelines. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. www.ahrq.gov/clinic/cpgsix.htm. Accessed 29 Sept 2014

  47. Kelly AM, Cronin P (2014) Levels of evidence (March 2009). Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025. Accessed 29 Aug 2014

  48. Kelly AM, Cronin P (2014) ACR Appropriateness Criteria. American College of Radiology. www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Appropriateness-Criteria. Accessed 17 July 2014

  49. Kelly AM, Cronin P (2014) The Royal College of Radiologists Web site. www.rcr.ac.uk. Accessed 17 July 2014

  50. Cronin P (2009) Evidence-based radiology: step 4—apply. Semin Roentgenol 44:180–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Guyatt G, Jaeschke R, Heddle N et al (1995) Basic statistics for clinicians: 2. Interpreting study results: confidence intervals. CMA J 152:169–173

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Akobeng AK (2007) Understanding diagnostic tests 2: likelihood ratios, pre- and post-test probabilities and their use in clinical practice. Acta Paediatr 96:487–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Fagan TJ (1975) Letter: nomogram for Bayes theorem. N Engl J Med 293:257

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Division of Cardiothoracic Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Aamer Chughtai, Aine Marie Kelly & Paul Cronin

  2. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Hospitals, B1 132G Taubman Center/5302 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-5302, USA

    Paul Cronin

Authors
  1. Aamer Chughtai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aine Marie Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul Cronin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Cronin.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM I

(DOCX 25.7 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chughtai, A., Kelly, A.M. & Cronin, P. How to perform a critical appraisal of diagnostic tests: 7 steps. Pediatr Radiol 45, 793–803 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-014-3202-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-014-3202-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation