Abstract
To determine whether improvements have occurred since a survey of the 1982 literature assessing diagnostic tests, the authors evaluated all English-language articles that assessed clinical diagnostic tests in abridged Index Medicus journals in 1985, and that had the terms sensitivity and specificity in the title, abstract, or key words. The 89 articles were assessed against seven methodologic criteria, including use of a well-defined “gold standard,” clearly defined test interpretation, blinding, clear data presentation, correct use of sensitivity and specificity, calculation of predictive values, and consideration of prevalence. In comparisons of 1985 vs. 1982 articles, there were significant improvements in five of the seven criteria. For example, the proportion of articles using a well-defined “gold standard” rose from 68% to 88%. Overall, the frequency of papers demonstrating five or more of the seven criteria increased from 26% to 47%. However, predictive values were discussed in only 54% of the articles without, necessarily, consideration of the influence of prevalence as well. This study raises the concern that while the concepts of sensitivity and specificity are now accepted, predictive values remain less well understood. Although there has been an improvement in the assessment of diagnostic tests in published research, attention to accepted methodologic standards is still needed on the part of researchers, reviewers, and editors.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Sheps SB, Schechter MT. The assessment of diagnostic tests: a survey of current medical research. JAMA 1984;252:2418–22.
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. How to read clinical journals: II. To learn about a diagnostic test. Can Med Assoc J 1981;124:703–10.
Chalmers TC, Blackburn BA, Silverman B, et al. A method for assessing the quality of an RCT. Cont Clin Trials 1981;2:31–49.
Griner PF, Mayewski RJ, Mushlin AI, et al. Selection and interpretation of tests and procedures: principles and applications. Ann Intern Med 1981;94:557–600.
Sox HC. Probability theory in the use of diagnostic tests: an introduction to critical study of the literature. Ann Intern Med 1986;104:60–6.
Frieman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H, et al. The importance of beta, the type 2 error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. N Engl J Med 1978;299:690–4.
Ransohoff DF, Feinstein A.R. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med 1978;299:926–30.
Schechter MT, Sheps SB. Diagnostic testing revisited: pathways through uncertainty. Can Med Assoc J 1985;132:755–60.
Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Tugwell P. Clinical epidemiology: a basic science for clinical medicine. Boston/Toronto: Little, Brown, 1985.
Feinstein AR. Clinical epidemiology: the architecture of clinical research. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1985.
Weiss NS. Clinical epidemiology: the study of outcome of illness. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
Bennett KJ, Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Neufield VR, Tugwell P, Roberts R. A controlled trial of teaching critical appraisal of the clinical literature to medical students. JAMA 1987;257:2451–4.
Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Clinical research in general medical journals: a 30 year perspective. N Engl J Med 1979;301:180–3.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 3rd ed. revised. Washington, DC, 1987;229–30.
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics. McMaster University. Clinical disagreement: I. How often it occurs and why. Can Med Assoc J 1980.123;499–504.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Received from the Department of Health Care and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Supported by a National Health Scholar Award to Dr. Schechter from the Department of National Health and Welfare of Canada.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Arroll, B., Schechter, M.T. & Sheps, S.B. The assessment of diagnostic tests. J Gen Intern Med 3, 443–447 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02595920
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02595920