Chapter 7: grading a body of evidence on diagnostic tests
- PMID: 22648675
- PMCID: PMC3364356
- DOI: 10.1007/s11606-012-2021-9
Chapter 7: grading a body of evidence on diagnostic tests
Abstract
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.
Similar articles
-
Grading a Body of Evidence on Diagnostic Tests.In: Chang SM, Matchar DB, Smetana GW, Umscheid CA, editors. Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012 Jun. Chapter 7. In: Chang SM, Matchar DB, Smetana GW, Umscheid CA, editors. Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012 Jun. Chapter 7. PMID: 22834024 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions--agency for healthcare research and quality and the effective health-care program.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 May;63(5):513-23. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.009. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010. PMID: 19595577
-
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews.J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Jun;27 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S4-10. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1798-2. J Gen Intern Med. 2012. PMID: 22648669 Free PMC article.
-
Chapter 8: meta-analysis of test performance when there is a "gold standard".J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Jun;27 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S56-66. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2029-1. J Gen Intern Med. 2012. PMID: 22648676 Free PMC article.
-
Grading evidence from test accuracy studies: what makes it challenging compared with the grading of effectiveness studies?Evid Based Med. 2017 Jun;22(3):81-84. doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110717. Evid Based Med. 2017. PMID: 28600330 Review.
Cited by
-
Diagnostic performance of DSC perfusion MRI to distinguish tumor progression and treatment-related changes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurooncol Adv. 2022 Mar 1;4(1):vdac027. doi: 10.1093/noajnl/vdac027. eCollection 2022 Jan-Dec. Neurooncol Adv. 2022. PMID: 35386567 Free PMC article. Review.
-
C-reactive protein for diagnosing late-onset infection in newborn infants.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jan 14;1(1):CD012126. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012126.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019. PMID: 30640979 Free PMC article.
-
Common evidence gaps in point-of-care diagnostic test evaluation: a review of horizon scan reports.BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 1;7(9):e015760. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015760. BMJ Open. 2017. PMID: 28864692 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Localizing value of disturbances of self-integration, depersonalization, and forced thinking: A systematic review.Epileptic Disord. 2025 Apr;27(2):156-170. doi: 10.1002/epd2.20317. Epub 2024 Dec 10. Epileptic Disord. 2025. PMID: 39656179 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluating the efficacy of bronchoscopy for the diagnosis of early stage lung cancer.J Thorac Dis. 2020 Jun;12(6):3245-3252. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2020.02.35. J Thorac Dis. 2020. PMID: 32642247 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D, et al. AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions–Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Effective Health-Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):513–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.009. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Atkins D, Fink K, Slutsky J. Better information for better health care: the evidence-based practice center program and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(12 Pt 2):1035–41. - PubMed
-
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available at: http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-revi.... December, 2011. - PubMed
-
- Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008;336(7653):1106–10. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39500.677199.AE. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources