Browsing by Subject "Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Chapter 1: Introduction to the Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews.
    (Journal of general internal medicine, 2012-06) Matchar, David B
    Evaluation of medical tests presents challenges distinct from those involved in the evaluation of therapies; in particular, the very great importance of context and the dearth of comprehensive RCTs aimed at comparing the clinical outcomes of different tests and test strategies. Available guidance provides some suggestions: 1) Use of the PICOTS typology for clarifying the context relevant to the review, and 2) use of an organizing framework for classifying the types of medical test evaluation studies and their relationship to potential key questions. However, there is a diversity of recommendations for reviewers of medical tests and a proliferation of concepts, terms, and methods. As a contribution to the field, this Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews seeks to provide practical guidance for achieving the goals of clarity, consistency, tractability, and usefulness.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Chapter 5: assessing risk of bias as a domain of quality in medical test studies.
    (Journal of general internal medicine, 2012-06) Santaguida, P Lina; Riley, Crystal M; Matchar, David B
    Assessing methodological quality is a necessary activity for any systematic review, including those evaluating the evidence for studies of medical test performance. Judging the overall quality of an individual study involves examining the size of the study, the direction and degree of findings, the relevance of the study, and the risk of bias in the form of systematic error, internal validity, and other study limitations. In this chapter of the Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews, we focus on the evaluation of risk of bias in the form of systematic error in an individual study as a distinctly important component of quality in studies of medical test performance, specifically in the context of estimating test performance (sensitivity and specificity). We make the following recommendations to systematic reviewers: 1) When assessing study limitations that are relevant to the test under evaluation, reviewers should select validated criteria that examine the risk of systematic error, 2) categorizing the risk of bias for individual studies as "low," "medium," or "high" is a useful way to proceed, and 3) methods for determining an overall categorization for the study limitations should be established a priori and documented clearly.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Chapter 6: assessing applicability of medical test studies in systematic reviews.
    (Journal of general internal medicine, 2012-06) Hartmann, KE; Matchar, DB; Chang, S
    Use of medical tests should be guided by research evidence about the accuracy and utility of those tests in clinical care settings. Systematic reviews of the literature about medical tests must address applicability to real-world decision-making. Challenges for reviews include: (1) lack of clarity in key questions about the intended applicability of the review, (2) numerous studies in many populations and settings, (3) publications that provide too little information to assess applicability, (4) secular trends in prevalence and the spectrum of the condition for which the test is done, and (5) changes in the technology of the test itself. We describe principles for crafting reviews that meet these challenges and capture the key elements from the literature necessary to understand applicability.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Chapter 7: grading a body of evidence on diagnostic tests.
    (Journal of general internal medicine, 2012-06) Singh, Sonal; Chang, Stephanie M; Matchar, David B; Bass, Eric B

    Introduction

    Grading the strength of a body of diagnostic test evidence involves challenges over and above those related to grading the evidence from health care intervention studies. This chapter identifies challenges and outlines principles for grading the body of evidence related to diagnostic test performance.

    Challenges

    Diagnostic test evidence is challenging to grade because standard tools for grading evidence were designed for questions about treatment rather than diagnostic testing; and the clinical usefulness of a diagnostic test depends on multiple links in a chain of evidence connecting the performance of a test to changes in clinical outcomes.

    Principles

    Reviewers grading the strength of a body of evidence on diagnostic tests should consider the principle domains of risk of bias, directness, consistency, and precision, as well as publication bias, dose response association, plausible unmeasured confounders that would decrease an effect, and strength of association, similar to what is done to grade evidence on treatment interventions. Given that most evidence regarding the clinical value of diagnostic tests is indirect, an analytic framework must be developed to clarify the key questions, and strength of evidence for each link in that framework should be graded separately. However if reviewers choose to combine domains into a single grade of evidence, they should explain their rationale for a particular summary grade and the relevant domains that were weighed in assigning the summary grade.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Do You Want to Hear the Bad News? The Value of Diagnostic Tests for Alzheimer's Disease.
    (Value Health, 2016-01) Mühlbacher, Axel; Johnson, F Reed; Yang, Jui-Chen; Happich, Michael; Belger, Mark
    OBJECTIVE: The diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains difficult. Lack of diagnostic certainty or possible distress related to a positive result from diagnostic testing could limit the application of new testing technologies. The objective of this paper is to quantify respondents' preferences for obtaining AD diagnostic tests and to estimate the perceived value of AD test information. METHODS: Discrete-choice experiment and contingent-valuation questions were administered to respondents in Germany and the United Kingdom. Choice data were analyzed by using random-parameters logit. A probit model characterized respondents who were not willing to take a test. RESULTS: Most respondents indicated a positive value for AD diagnostic test information. Respondents who indicated an interest in testing preferred brain imaging without the use of radioactive markers. German respondents had relatively lower money-equivalent values for test features compared with respondents in the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents preferred less invasive diagnostic procedures and tests with higher accuracy and expressed a willingness to pay up to €700 to receive a less invasive test with the highest accuracy.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Invasive aspergillosis in critically ill patients: Review of definitions and diagnostic approaches.
    (Mycoses, 2021-09) Jenks, Jeffrey D; Nam, Hannah H; Hoenigl, Martin
    Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is an increasingly recognised phenomenon in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit, including in patients with severe influenza and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. To date, there are no consensus criteria on how to define IA in the ICU population, although several criteria are used, including the AspICU criteria and new consensus criteria to categorise COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA). In this review, we describe the epidemiology of IA in critically ill patients, most common definitions used to define IA in this population, and most common clinical specimens obtained for establishing a mycological diagnosis of IA in the critically ill. We also review the most common diagnostic tests used to diagnose IA in this population, and lastly discuss the most common clinical presentation and imaging findings of IA in the critically ill and discuss areas of further needed investigation.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Methods guide for authors of systematic reviews of medical tests: a collaboration between the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Journal of General Internal Medicine.
    (Journal of general internal medicine, 2012-06) Smetana, Gerald W; Umscheid, Craig A; Chang, Stephanie; Matchar, David B
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Patient-based outcome assessment instruments in acupuncture research.
    (J Altern Complement Med, 2010-01) Khorsan, Raheleh; York, Alexandra; Coulter, Ian D; Wurzman, Rachel; Walter, Joan AG; Coeytaux, Remy R
    BACKGROUND: Outcome assessment can support the therapeutic process by providing a way to track symptoms and functionality over time, providing insights to clinicians and patients, as well as offering a common language to discuss patient behavior/functioning. OBJECTIVES: In this article, we examine the patient-based outcome assessment (PBOA) instruments that have been used to determine outcomes in acupuncture clinical research and highlight measures that are feasible, practical, economical, reliable, valid, and responsive to clinical change. The aims of this review were to assess and identify the commonly available PBOA measures, describe a framework for identifying appropriate sets of measures, and address the challenges associated with these measures and acupuncture. Instruments were evaluated in terms of feasibility, practicality, economy, reliability, validity, and responsiveness to clinical change. METHODS: This study was a systematic review. A total of 582 abstracts were reviewed using PubMed (from inception through April 2009). RESULTS: A total of 582 citations were identified. After screening of title/abstract, 212 articles were excluded. From the remaining 370 citations, 258 manuscripts identified explicit PBOA; 112 abstracts did not include any PBOA. The five most common PBOA instruments identified were the Visual Analog Scale, Symptom Diary, Numerical Pain Rating Scales, SF-36, and depression scales such as the Beck Depression Inventory. CONCLUSIONS: The way a questionnaire or scale is administered can have an effect on the outcome. Also, developing and validating outcome measures can be costly and difficult. Therefore, reviewing the literature on existing measures before creating or modifying PBOA instruments can significantly reduce the burden of developing a new measure.