Use of test accuracy study design labels in NICE's diagnostic guidance
Authors/Creators
- 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)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:5ad24567fff2744e597eb04b2ac8b5e7
|
830.7 kB | Preview Download |