Linking the evidence: Intermediate outcomes in medical test assessments

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 52-58

  Staub, Lukas P ^a   Dyer, Suzanne ^a   Lord, Sarah J ^a   Simes, R John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Assessment; International; Test evaluation

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; HEALTH OUTCOMES; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; INTERNATIONAL; INTERNATIONAL NETWORKS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PATIENT MANAGEMENT; QUALITY APPRAISALS; RANDOMIZED TRIAL; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TEST EVALUATION;

HEALTH;

DIAGNOSIS;

ARTICLE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUALITY CONTROL; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC TESTS, ROUTINE; DISEASE PROGRESSION; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROGNOSIS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84859044086     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462311000717     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. AHRQ. Methods guide for medical test reviews (draft). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010.
2. Albon E, Tsourapas A, Frew E, et al. Structural neuroimaging in psychosis: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12:iii-iv, ix-163.
3. Bossuyt PM, Irwig L, Craig J, Glasziou P. Diagnosis - Comparative accuracy: Assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways. BMJ. 2006;332:1089-1092. (Pubitemid 44365494)
4. Bossuyt PM, Lijmer JG,Mol BW, et al. Randomised comparisons of medical tests: Sometimes invalid, not always efficient. Lancet. 2000;356:1844-1847.
5. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative. BMJ. 2003;326:41-44. (Pubitemid 36110721)
6. EUnetHTA. HTA core model for diagnostic technologies v 1.0r. Copenhagen: European Network for Health Technology Assessment; 2008.
7. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:88-94.
8. Glasziou PP, Aronson JK. An introduction to monitoring therapeutic interventions in clinical practice. In:Glasziou PP, Irwig L, Aronson JK, eds. Evidence-based medical monitoring. Malden, MA: BMJ Books; 2008.
9. Grootendorst DC, Jager KJ, Zoccali C, Dekker FW. Screening: Why, when, and how. Kidney Int. 2009;76:694-699.
10. Guyatt GH,Tugwell PX, Feeny DH, et al.The role of before after studies of therapeutic impact in the evaluation of diagnostic technologies. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39:295-304. (Pubitemid 16017616)
11. Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.0.1 (updated September 2008). Cochrane Collaboration; 2008.
12. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1-12. (Pubitemid 26120810)
13. Knottnerus JA, Van Weel C, Muris JWM. Evidence base of clinical diagnosis-Evaluation of diagnostic procedures. BMJ. 2002;324: 477-480. (Pubitemid 34169469)
14. Lijmer JG, Leeflang M, Bossuyt PM. Proposals for a phased evaluation of medical tests. Med Decis Making. 2009;29:E13-E21.
15. Lord SJ, Irwig L, Simes RJ. When is measuring sensitivity and specificity sufficient to evaluate a diagnostic test, and when do we need randomized trials? Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:850-855. (Pubitemid 46780618)
16. Meads CA, Davenport CF. Quality assessment of diagnostic before-after studies: Development of methodology in the context of a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:3.
17. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:657-662. (Pubitemid 32322244)
18. MSAC. Guidelines for the assessment of diagnostic technologies. Canberra: Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC), Commonwealth of Australia; 2005.
19. MSAC. Positron emission tomography for head and neck cancer. Canberra: Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC), Commonwealth of Australia; 2008.
20. NICE. Diagnostics assessment programme; Interim methods statement (March 2010). London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2010.
21. Pawson RF, Greenhalgh TF, Harvey GF,Walshe K. Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10:21-34. (Pubitemid 40993882)
22. Pepe MS. Introduction. In: Pepe MS, ed. The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
23. Piper MA, Aronson N, Ziegler KM, et al. Special report: Fecal DNA analysis for colon cancer screening. Assessment program 21(6). Blue Cross Blue Shield Association; 2006.
24. Scott AM, Gunawardana DH, Bartholomeusz D, et al. PET changes management and improves prognostic stratification in patients with head and neck cancer: Results of a multicenter prospective study. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1593-1600.
25. Staub LP, Lord SJ, Simes RJ, et al. Using patient management as a proxy for patient outcomes in test evaluation. Methods for Evaluating Medical Tests and Biomarkers 2nd Symposium; 1-2 July 2010; Birmingham: 41.
26. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al. The development of QUADAS: A tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25.