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

Developing the Topic and Structuring Systematic Reviews of Medical Tests: Utility of PICOTS, Analytic Frameworks, Decision Trees, and Other Frameworks

David Samson  1 , Karen M Schoelles  2
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 2.
AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care.
Affiliations
Free Books & Documents
Review

Developing the Topic and Structuring Systematic Reviews of Medical Tests: Utility of PICOTS, Analytic Frameworks, Decision Trees, and Other Frameworks

David Samson et al.
Free Books & Documents

Excerpt

Topic development and structuring a systematic review of diagnostic tests are complementary processes. The goals of a medical test review are: to identify and synthesize evidence to evaluate the impacts of alternative testing strategies on health outcomes and to promote informed decisionmaking. A common challenge is that the request for a review may state the claim for the test ambiguously. Due to the indirect impact of medical tests on clinical outcomes, reviewers need to identify which intermediate outcomes link a medical test to improved clinical outcomes. In this paper, we propose the use of five principles to deal with challenges: the PICOTS typology (Patient population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Timing, Setting), analytic frameworks, simple decision trees, other organizing frameworks, and rules for when diagnostic accuracy is sufficient.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Institute of Medicine, Division of Health Sciences Policy, Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Committee for Evaluating Medical Technologies in Clinical Use. Chapter 3: Methods of technology assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1985. Assessing medical technologies; pp. 80–90. - PubMed
    1. Helfand M, Balshem H. AHRQ Series Paper 2: Principles for developing guidance: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):484–90. - PubMed
    1. Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, et al. AHRQ Series Paper 3: Identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):491–501. - PubMed
    1. Matchar DB, Patwardhan M, Sarria-Santamera A, et al. Technical Review 11. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Jan2006. [Accessed January 10, 2012]. Developing a Methodology for Establishing a Statement of Work for a Policy-Relevant Technical Analysis. (Prepared by the Duke Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0025.) AHRQ Publication No. 06-0026. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/statework/statework.pdf. - PubMed
    1. Sarria-Santamera A, Matchar DB, Westermann-Clark EV, et al. Evidence-based practice center network and health technology assessment in the United States: bridging the cultural gap. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(1):33–8. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources