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
. 2023 Feb 21;39(1):e14.
doi: 10.1017/S0266462323000065.

Health technology assessment of diagnostic tests: a state of the art review of methods guidance from international organizations

Affiliations

Health technology assessment of diagnostic tests: a state of the art review of methods guidance from international organizations

Lavinia Ferrante di Ruffano et al. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. .

Abstract

Objectives: To identify which international health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are undertaking evaluations of medical tests, summarize commonalities and differences in methodological approach, and highlight examples of good practice.

Methods: A methodological review incorporating: systematic identification of HTA guidance documents mentioning evaluation of tests; identification of key contributing organizations and abstraction of approaches to all essential HTA steps; summary of similarities and differences between organizations; and identification of important emergent themes which define the current state of the art and frontiers where further development is needed.

Results: Seven key organizations were identified from 216 screened. The main themes were: elucidation of claims of test benefits; attitude to direct and indirect evidence of clinical effectiveness (including evidence linkage); searching; quality assessment; and health economic evaluation. With the exception of dealing with test accuracy data, approaches were largely based on general approaches to HTA with few test-specific modifications. Elucidation of test claims and attitude to direct and indirect evidence are where we identified the biggest dissimilarities in approach.

Conclusions: There is consensus on some aspects of HTA of tests, such as dealing with test accuracy, and examples of good practice which HTA organizations new to test evaluation can emulate. The focus on test accuracy contrasts with universal acknowledgment that it is not a sufficient evidence base for test evaluation. There are frontiers where methodological development is urgently required, notably integrating direct and indirect evidence and standardizing approaches to evidence linkage.

Keywords: diagnostic tests; health technology assessment; methods.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare none.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Identification of international HTA organizations and documentation.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Stage 1 organization approaches to defining the way in which a diagnostic test claims to impact on patient health. Green cells identify the majority view, gray cells indicate uncertainty in approach, and blue cells illustrate specifically reported approaches to identifying and using test claims in the HTA process. ER, effectiveness review; HEE, health economics evaluation; HTA, health technology assessment.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Stage 1 organization approaches to using direct and indirect evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of diagnostic tests. Green cells identify the majority view, gray cells are not specifically mentioned but are plausible approaches, and blue cells illustrate specifically reported approaches to using direct and indirect evidence.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:88–94. - PubMed
    1. Ferrante di Ruffano L, Hyde CJ, McCaffery KJ, Bossuyt PMM, Deeks JJ. Assessing the value of diagnostic tests: A framework for designing and evaluating trials. BMJ. 2012;344:e686. - PubMed
    1. Bossuyt PM, Lijmer JG. Traditional health outcomes in the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Acad Radiol. 1999;6:S77–S80; discussion S3-4. - PubMed
    1. Fineberg HV. Evaluation of computed tomography: achievement and challenge. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1978;131:1–4. - PubMed
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008;336:1106–1110. - PMC - PubMed