Published September 5, 2019 | Version v1
Journal article Open

Use of test accuracy study design labels in NICE's diagnostic guidance

  • 1. Amsterdam University Medical Centers
  • 2. Exeter Test Group, Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School

Description

Abstract

Background: A variety of study designs are available to evaluate the accuracy of tests, but the terms used to

describe these designs seem to lack clarity and standardization. We investigated if this was the case in the

diagnostic guidance of the National Institute of Care and Health Excellence (NICE), an influential source of advice

on the value of tests.

Objectives: To describe the range of study design terms and labels used to distinguish study designs in NICE

Diagnostic Guidance and the underlying evidence reports.

Methods: We carefully examined all NICE Diagnostic Guidance that has been developed from inception in 2011

until 2018 and the corresponding diagnostic assessment reports that summarized the evidence, focusing on

guidance where tests were considered for diagnosis. We abstracted labels used to describe study designs and

investigated what labels were used when studies were weighted differently because of their design (in terms of

validity of evidence), in relevant sections. We made a descriptive analysis to assess the range of labels and also

categorized labels by design features.

Results: From a total of 36 pieces of guidance, 20 (56%) were eligible and 17 (47%) were included in our analysis.

We identified 53 unique design labels, of which 19 (36%) were specific to diagnostic test accuracy designs. These

referred to a total of 12 study design features. Labels were used in assigning different weights to studies in seven

of the reports (41%) but never in the guidance documents.

Conclusion: Our study confirms a lack of clarity and standardization of test accuracy study design terms. There

seems to be scope to reduce and harmonize the number of terms and still capture the design features that were

deemed influential by those compiling the evidence reports. This should help decision makers in quickly identifying

subgroups of included studies that should be weighted differently because their designs are more susceptible to

bias.

Files

Olsen_et_al-2019-Diagnostic_and_Prognostic_Research.pdf

Files (830.7 kB)

Additional details

Funding

European Commission
MIROR - Methods in Research on Research 676207