Genetic tests and their evaluation: Can we answer the key questions?

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 6, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 475-480

  Kroese, Mark ^a,b   Zimmern, Ron L ^a   Sanderson, Simon ^a  

^a Public Health Genetics Unit   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Genetic test; Predictive value; Test reference standards; Test validity

Indexed keywords

DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EVALUATION; GENETIC ANALYSIS; MOLECULAR GENETICS; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EVALUATION STUDIES; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 9644289528     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.GIM.0000144060.84960.36     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Reid MC, Lachs MS, Feinstein AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good. JAMA 1995;274:645-651.
2. Bogardus ST, Jr., Concato J, Feinstein AR. Clinical epidemiological quality in molecular genetic research: the need for methodological standards. JAMA 1999;281: 1919-1926.
3. Nierenberg AA, Feinstein AR. How to evaluate a diagnostic marker test. Lessons from the rise and fall of dexamethasone suppression test. JAMA 1988;259:1699-1702.
4. Final Report of the Task Force on Genetic Testing in the United States. Promoting Safe and Effective Genetic Testing in the United States. Holtzman NA and Watson MS. 1-82. 1997. The National Human Genome Research Institute.
5. Zimmern R. What is genetic information: Whose hands on your genes? Genet Law Mon 2001;1:9-13.
6. ACCE. Population-Based Pre-natal Screening for Cystic Fibrosis via Carrier Testing. Haddow JE and Palomaki G. 2002. Office of Genomics and Disease Prevention, CDC.
7. Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. Enhancing the Oversight of Genetic Tests, Recommendations of the SACGT. 1-32. Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health; 2000.
8. Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. Development of a Classification Methodology for Genetic Tests: Conclusions and Recommendations of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. 1-7. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2001.
9. Burke W, Atkins D, Gwinn M, Guttmacher A, Haddow J, Lau J et al. Genetic test evaluation: information needs of clinicians, policy makers, and the public. Am J Epidemiol 2002;156:311-318.
10. Brenner H, Gefeller O. Variation of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and predictive values with disease prevalence. Stat Med 1997;16:981-991.
11. Knottnerus JA, Van Weel C. General introduction: evaluation of diagnostic procedures. In Knottnerus JA, ed. The Evidence Base of Clinical Diagnosis. London: BMJ Books; 2002:1-18.
12. Mulherin SA, Miller WC. Spectrum bias or spectrum effect? Subgroup variation in diagnostic test evaluation. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:598-602.
13. Begg CB. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 1987;6:411-423.
14. Alonzo TA, Pepe MS, Moskowitz, CS. Sample size calculations for comparative studies of medical tests for detecting presence of disease. Stat Med 2002;21:835-852.
15. Roach ES, Gomez MR, Northrup H. Tuberous sclerosis complex consensus conference: revised clinical diagnostic criteria. J Child Neurol 1998;13:624-648.
16. Begg CB, Greenes RA, Iglewicz B. The influence of uninterpretability on the assessment of diagnostic tests. J Chronic Dis 1986;39:575-584.
17. Palomaki GE, Haddow JE, Bradley LA, Richards CS, Stenzel TT, Grody WW. Estimated analytic validity of HFE C282Y mutation testing in population screening: the potential value of confirmatory testing. Genet Med 2003;5:440-443.
18. Kwiatkowska J, Wigowska-Sowinska J, Napierala D, Slomski R, Kwiatkowski DJ. Mosaicism in tuberous sclerosis as a potential cause of the failure of molecular diagnosis. N Engl J Med 1999;340:703-707.
19. Smith JE, Winkler RL, Fryback DG. The first positive: computing positive predictive value at the extremes. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:804-809.
20. Boyko EJ, Alderman BW, Baron AE. Reference test errors bias the evaluation of diagnostic tests for ischemic heart disease. J Gen Intern Med 1988;3:476-481.
21. Valenstein PN. Evaluating diagnostic tests with imperfect standards. Am J Clin Pathol 1990;93:252-258.
22. Walter SD,. Irwig LM. Estimation of test error rates, disease prevalence and relative risk from misclassified data: a review. J Clin Epidemiol 1988;41:923-937.
23. Green TA, Black CM, Johnson RE. Evaluation of bias in diagnostic-test sensitivity and specificity estimates computed by discrepant analysis. J Clin Microbiol 1998;36: 375-381.
24. Lipman HB,. Astles JR. Quantifying the bias associated with use of discrepant analysis. Clin Chem 1998;44:108-115.
25. Hadgu A. The discrepancy in discrepant analysis. Lancet 1996;348:592-593.
26. Hadgu A. Discrepant analysis: a biased and an unscientific method for estimating test sensitivity and specificity. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:1231-1237.
27. McAdam AJ. Discrepant analysis: how can we test a test? J Clin Microbiol 2000;38: 2027-2029.
28. Alonzo TA,. Pepe MS. Using a combination of reference tests to assess the accuracy of a new diagnostic test. Stat Med 1999;18:2987-3003.
29. Formann AK, Kohlmann T. Latent class analysis in medical research. Stat Methods Med Res 1996;5:179-211.