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
Editorial
. 2018 Jun 18:2:9.
doi: 10.1186/s41512-018-0030-9. eCollection 2018.

Diagnostic evidence cooperatives: bridging the valley of death in diagnostics development

Ann Van den Bruel  1   2 , Gail Hayward  1
Affiliations
Editorial

Diagnostic evidence cooperatives: bridging the valley of death in diagnostics development

Ann Van den Bruel et al. Diagn Progn Res. .

Abstract

Background: Diagnostic tests' impact on patient outcomes and health processes is potentially large, and proper evaluations before widespread adoption are warranted. Such evaluations are challenged by the fact that tests can have multiple purposes, in different clinical pathways, with different roles.

Body: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) established four Diagnostic Evidence Cooperatives (DEC) in 2013, across England. The aim of these DECs was to facilitate the development and evaluation of clinically relevant in vitro diagnostics, by offering methodological expertise and access to real-life settings for evaluations in patients. In this commentary, we discuss our experience over the past 4 years.

Conclusion: The interaction of industry, researchers, and clinicians has proven to be very worthwhile.

Keywords: Diagnosis; Primary care; Research and development.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Not applicable.The authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Lijmer JG, Leeflang M, Bossuyt PM. Proposals for a phased evaluation of medical tests. Med Decis Mak. 2009;29(5):E13–E21. doi: 10.1177/0272989X09336144. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Horvath AR, Lord SJ, StJohn A, Sandberg S, Cobbaert CM, Lorenz S, et al. From biomarkers to medical tests: the changing landscape of test evaluation. Clin Chim Acta. 2014;427:49–57. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2013.09.018. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Mak. 1991;11(2):88–94. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9101100203. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Van den Bruel A, Cleemput I, Aertgeerts B, Ramaekers D, Buntinx F. The evaluation of diagnostic tests: evidence on technical and diagnostic accuracy, impact on patient outcome and cost-effectiveness is needed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(11):1116–1122. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.015. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Verbakel JY, Turner PJ, Thompson MJ, Pluddemann A, Price CP, Shinkins B, et al. Common evidence gaps in point-of-care diagnostic test evaluation: a review of horizon scan reports. BMJ Open. 2017;7(9):e015760. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015760. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources