Decision Making about Healthcare-Related Tests and Diagnostic Test Strategies. Paper 4: International Guidelines Show Variability in Their Approaches
Abstract
Objectives The objective of the study was to describe and compare current practices in developing guidelines about the use of healthcare-related tests and diagnostic strategies (HCTDS). Study design and setting We sampled 37 public health and clinical practice guidelines about HCTDS from various sources without language restrictions. Results Detailed descriptions of the systems used to assess the quality of evidence and develop recommendations were challenging to find within guidelines. We observed much variability among and within organizations with respect to how they develop recommendations about HCTDS. Twenty-four percent of the guidelines did not consider health benefits and harms but based decisions solely on test accuracy. We did not identify guidelines that described the main potential care pathways involving tests for a healthcare problem. In addition, we did not identify guidelines that systematically assessed, described, and referenced the evidence that linked test accuracy and patient-important outcomes. Conclusion There is considerable variability among the processes used and factors considered in developing recommendations about the use of tests. This variability may be the cause for the disagreement we observed in recommendations about testing for the same condition.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many diagnostic guidelines are incomplete and have limitations including lack of clear definitions, inadequate consideration for comorbidities, and lacking standardized testing methods.
“However, many diagnostic guidelines are incomplete and have several limitations, including a lack of clear definitions [141,142], inadequate consideration for comorbidities [143,144], and lacking standardized testing methods [145,146].”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [145]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 14
- Authors
- Mustafa, R. A., Wiercioch, W., Arevalo-Rodriguez, I., Cheung, A., Prediger, B., Ivanova, L., Ventresca, M., Brozek, J., Santesso, N., Bossuyt, P., Garg, A. X., Lloyd, N., Lelgemann, M., Bühler, D., & Schünemann, H. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Kansas Medical Center (US)
- McMaster University (CA)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- University of Freiburg (DE)
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Western University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Schünemann, Holger J.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-12
- Volume
- 92
- Pages
- 38-46
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2755511073
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 2.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
- Keywords
- guideline development, evidence quality assessment, diagnostic accuracy, patient-relevant outcomes, diagnostic testing
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Female, Health Services, Humans, Male, Public Health, Quality of Health Care, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Internationality
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review