The linked evidence approach to assess medical tests: A critical analysis

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 343-350

  Merlin, Tracy ^a   Lehman, Samuel ^a   Hiller, Janet E ^b   Ryan, Philip ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

^b AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Diagnostic test approval; Evaluation methodology; Reimbursement mechanisms; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ADVISORY COMMITTEE; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; DECISION FRAMEWORK; DIAGNOSTIC TESTS; EVALUATION METHODOLOGIES; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; REFERENCE STANDARD; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

PATIENT TREATMENT;

DIAGNOSIS;

ADVISORY COMMITTEE; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; DATA EXTRACTION; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; HUMAN; LINKED EVIDENCE APPROACH; MEDICAL SERVICE; REIMBURSEMENT; SCREENING; STAGING;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; AUSTRALIA; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES; ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GATEKEEPING; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HUMANS; REIMBURSEMENT MECHANISMS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84880431163     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462313000287     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. AHRQ. Methods guide for medical test reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2010.
2. CDC. ACCE model list of 44 Targeted questions aimed at a comprehensive review of genetic testing [internet]. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Office of Public Health Genomics; 2010. http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/gtesting/ACCE/acce-proj.htm. (accessed April 26, 2012).
3. FDA. In vitro companion diagnostic devices: Draft guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff [internet]. Rockville,Maryland: Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2011.
4. EUnetHTA. HTA core model for diagnostic technologies. Work Package 4. Copenhagen: European Network for Health Technology Assessment; 2008.
5. NICE. Interim methods statement (pilot). Version 8 [internet]. London: National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence Centre for Health Technology Evaluation, Diagnostics Assessment Programme; 2010.
6. MSAC. Guidelines for the assessment of diagnostic technologies. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia; August 2005.
7. Lord SJ, Irwig L, Bossuyt PM. Using the principles of randomized controlled trial design to guide test evaluation. Med Decis Making. 2009;29:E1-E12.
8. Staub L, Dyer S, Lord S, Simes RJ. Linking the evidence: Intermediate outcomes in medical test assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:52-58.
9. Harris R, Helfand M, Woolf S, et al. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: A review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(Suppl):21-35.
10. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:88-94.
11. di Ruffano L, Davenport C, Eising A, Hyde C, Deeks J. A capturerecapture analysis demonstrated that randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of diagnostic tests on patient outcomes are rare. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:282-287.
12. Merlin T, Farah C, Schubert C, Mitchell A, Hiller J, Ryan P. Assessing personalized medicines in Australia: A national framework for reviewing codependent technologies. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:333-342.
13. Marinovich L. Optical coherence tomography [internet]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009. www.msac.gov.au. (accessed April 2, 2012).
14. Buckley L, Wang S, Merlin T. Molecular testing for myeloproliferative disease. Part A-Polycythaemia vera, essential thrombocythaemia and primary myelofibrosis. Part B-Systemic mast cell disease, hypereosinophilic syndrome and chronic eosinophilic leukaemia [internet]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009. www.msac.gov.au. (accessed April 2, 2012).
15. Schoeppe S, Lewis S, Marinovich L, Wortley S. Positron emission tomography for cervical cancer [internet]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2010. www.msac.gov.au. (accessed April 2, 2012).
16. Lord S, Lei W, Griffiths A, et al. Breast magnetic resonance imaging [internet]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2007. www.msac. gov.au. (accessed April 2, 2012).
17. Merlin T, Moss J, Brooks A, Newton S, Hedayati H, Hiller J. B-type natriuretic peptide assays in the diagnosis of heart failure [internet]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2008. www.msac.gov.au. (accessed April 26, 2012).
18. Marinovich L,Wortley S. Positron emission tomography for glioma. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2010.
19. Gillespie J, Guarnieri C, Phillips H, Bhatti T. Urinary metabolic profiling for detection of metabolic disorders [internet]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009. www.msac.gov.au. (accessed April 2, 2012).
20. Gillespie J, Smala A, Walters N, Birinyi-Strachan L. Hepatitis B virus DNA testing [internet]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2007. www.msac.gov.au. (accessed March 30, 2012).
21. Craig D, McDaid C, Fonseca T, Stock C, Duffy S, Woolacott N. Are adverse effects incorporated in economic models? A survey of current practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:323-329.
22. Bossuyt PM, Irwig L, Craig J, Glasziou P. Comparative accuracy: Assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways. BMJ. 2006;332:1089-1092.
23. Micheel C, Ball J, eds. Evaluation of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in chronic disease. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 2010.
24. Anderson L, Petticrew M, Rehfuess E, et al. Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2:33-42.