Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review

Introduction to the Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews

David B Matchar  1
Stephanie M Chang  1 , David B Matchar  2 , Gerald W Smetana  3 , Craig A Umscheid  4
, editors.
In: Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012 Jun. Chapter 1.
AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care.
Affiliations
Free Books & Documents
Review

Introduction to the Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews

David B Matchar.
Free Books & Documents

Excerpt

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 the PICOTS typology for clarifying the context relevant to the review, and (2) Use 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 to achieving the goal of clarity, consistency, tractability, and usefulness.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008. [Accessed September 20, 2010]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK47095.
    1. Siebert U. When should decision analytic modeling be used in the economic evaluation of health care? Eur J Health Econ. 2003;4(3):143–50.
    1. Tatsioni A, Zarin DA, Aronson N, et al. Challenges in systematic reviews of diagnostic technologies. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(12 Pt 2):1048–55. - PubMed
    1. Bossuyt PM, Lijmer JG, Mol BW. Randomised comparisons of medical tests: sometimes invalid, not always efficient. Lancet. 2000;356:1844–7. - PubMed
    1. Lord SJ, Irwig L, Simes J. When is measuring sensitivity and specificity sufficient to evaluate a diagnostic test, and when do we need a randomized trial? Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(11):850–5. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources