Decision-analytic modeling to evaluate benefits and harms of medical tests: uses and limitations
Abstract
The clinical utility of medical tests is measured by whether the information they provide affects patient-relevant outcomes. To a large extent, effects of medical tests are indirect in nature. In principle, a test result affects patient outcomes mainly by influencing treatment choices. This indirectness in the link between testing and its downstream effects poses practical challenges to comparing alternate test-and-treat strategies in clinical trials. Keeping in mind the broader audience of researchers who perform comparative effectiveness reviews and technology assessments, the authors summarize the rationale for and pitfalls of decision modeling in the comparative evaluation of medical tests by virtue of specific examples. Modeling facilitates the interpretation of test performance measures by connecting the link between testing and patient outcomes, accounting for uncertainties and explicating assumptions, and allowing the systematic study of tradeoffs and uncertainty. The authors discuss challenges encountered when modeling test-and-treat strategies, including but not limited to scarcity of data on important parameters, transferring estimates of test performance across studies, choosing modeling outcomes, and obtaining summary estimates for test performance data.
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?
Diagnostic models are used to identify optimal diagnostic strategies among individuals who present with signs or symptoms of one or more suspected diseases.
“Diagnostic models are used to identify optimal diagnostic strategies among individuals who present with signs or symptoms of one or more suspected diseases [28].”
From State-Transition Modeling: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3 (2012) · cites this paper as [28]
Cites
Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Bossuyt, P. M., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 · Cited by 3,369 · see citing works
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41 · Cited by 3,215
Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.
Lijmer, J. G. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 · Cited by 1,861 · see citing works
Decision Making in Health and Medicine: Integrating Evidence and Values
Hunink, M. G. M., Weinstein, M. C., Wittenberg, E., Drummond, M. F., Pliskin, J. S., Wong, J. B., & Glasziou, P. P. (2014) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139506779 · Cited by 425 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Transparent and reproducible approaches, such as decisionanalytic modeling, are often necessary in evaluating the comparative clinical utility of medical tests.(8;9) Herein, we discuss the rationale for and impact of using modeling to assess medical tests for the broad audience of researchers who perform comparative e…”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fihn, S. D., Gardin, J. M., Abrams, J., Berra, K., Blankenship, J. C., Dallas, A. P., Douglas, P. S., Foody, J. M., Gerber, T. C., Hinderliter, A. L., et al. (2012) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0b013e318277d6a0 · Cited by 845 · see citing works
State-Transition Modeling: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3
Siebert, U., Alagoz, O., Bayoumi, A. M., Jahn, B., Owens, D. K., Cohen, D. J., & Kuntz, K. M. (2012) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.014 · Cited by 495 · see citing works
Self-citationState-Transition Modeling: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–3
Siebert, U., Alagoz, O., Bayoumi, A. M., Jahn, B., Owens, D. K., Cohen, D. J., & Kuntz, K. M. (2012) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x12455463 · Cited by 348 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Trikalinos, T. A., Siebert, U., & Lau, J.
- Affiliations
- Tufts Medical Center (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Trikalinos, Thomas A.
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-09
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- E22-E29
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-681X
- OpenAlex
- W2055972131
- Cited by
- 88
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 14.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Medical Decision Making (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Keywords
- decision-analytic modeling, medical testing, clinical utility, test and treat, comparative effectiveness, technology assessment, uncertainty, parameter estimation
- MeSH terms
- Decision Support Techniques, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Clinical Laboratory Techniques, Uncertainty
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