The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
When Is Measuring Sensitivity and Specificity Sufficient To Evaluate a Diagnostic Test, and When Do We Need Randomized Trials?
Abstract
The clinical value of using a new diagnostic test depends on whether it improves patient outcomes beyond the outcomes achieved using an old diagnostic test. When can studies of diagnostic test accuracy provide sufficient information to infer clinical value, and when do clinicians need to wait for results from randomized trials? The authors argue that accuracy studies suffice if a new diagnostic test is safer or more specific than, but of similar sensitivity to, an old test. However, if a new test is more sensitive than an old test, it leads to the detection of extra cases of disease. Results from treatment trials that enrolled only patients detected by the old test may not apply to these extra cases. Clinicians need to wait for results from randomized trials assessing treatment efficacy in cases detected by the new diagnostic test, unless they can be satisfied that the new test detects the same spectrum and subtype of disease as the old test or that treatment response is similar across the spectrum of disease.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Irwig, L. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7338.669 · Cited by 246
Self-citation
Cited by
STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration
Cohen, J. F., Korevaar, D. A., Altman, D. G., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Hooft, L., Irwig, L., Levine, D., Reitsma, J. B., de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2016) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012799 · Cited by 2,570
Self-citationGrading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies
Schünemann, H. J., Oxman, A. D., Brozek, J., Glasziou, P., Jaeschke, R., Vist, G. E., Williams, J. W., Kunz, R., Craig, J., Montori, V. M., et al. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39500.677199.ae · Cited by 1,782
Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy
Leeflang, M. M. G., Deeks, J. J., Gatsonis, C., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2008) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-149-12-200812160-00008 · Cited by 1,124
Lin, J. S., Bowles, E. J. A., Williams, S. B., & Morrison, C. C. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.0562 · Cited by 1,082
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy
(2023) · doi:10.1002/9781119756194 · Cited by 757
Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods
Rutjes, A., Reitsma, J., Coomarasamy, A., Khan, K., & Bossuyt, P. (2007) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta11500 · Cited by 524
Reitsma, J. B., Rutjes, A. W. S., Khan, K. S., Coomarasamy, A., & Bossuyt, P. M. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.02.005 · Cited by 405
Beyond Diagnostic Accuracy: The Clinical Utility of Diagnostic Tests
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Linnet, K., & Moons, K. G. (2012) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2012.182576 · Cited by 330
Brożek, J. L., Akl, E. A., Jaeschke, R., Lang, D. M., Bossuyt, P., Glasziou, P., Helfand, M., Ueffing, E., Alonso‐Coello, P., Meerpohl, J., et al. (2009) · Allergy · doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02083.x · Cited by 270
From biomarkers to medical tests: the changing landscape of test evaluation
Horvath, A. R., Lord, S. J., StJohn, A., Sandberg, S., Cobbaert, C. M., Lorenz, S., Monaghan, P. J., Verhagen-Kamerbeek, W. D. J., Ebert, C., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2014) · Clinica Chimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.cca.2013.09.018 · Cited by 203
Self-citationConsequences Validity Evidence: Evaluating the Impact of Educational Assessments
Cook, D. A., & Lineberry, M. (2016) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001114 · Cited by 129
Decision-analytic modeling to evaluate benefits and harms of medical tests: uses and limitations
Trikalinos, T. A., Siebert, U., & Lau, J. (2009) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x09345022 · Cited by 88
Moving the goalposts while scoring―the dilemma posed by new PET technologies
Rogasch, J. M. M., Boellaard, R., Pike, L., Borchmann, P., Johnson, P., Wolf, J., Barrington, S. F., & Kobe, C. (2021) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-021-05403-2 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Lord, S. J., Irwig, L., & Simes, R. J.
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 2006-06-06
- Volume
- 144
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 850-855
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W2056989663
- Cited by
- 268
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
