Suppr超能文献

诊断试验准确性的评估:横断面研究。

Assessment of the accuracy of diagnostic tests: the cross-sectional study.

作者信息

Knottnerus J A, Muris J W

机构信息

University of Maastricht, Netherlands School of Primary Care Research, Post Office Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2003 Nov;56(11):1118-28. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00206-3.

Abstract

In diagnostic accuracy studies, the contrast of interest can be one of the following: one single test contrast; comparing two or more single tests; further testing in addition to previous diagnostics; and comparing alternative diagnostic strategies. The clinical diagnostic problem under study must be specified. Studies of "extreme contrasts" (as early phase evaluations) and studies in "clinical practice" settings (assessing clinical value) should be distinguished. Design options are (1) survey of the total study population, (2) case-referent approach, or (3) test-based enrollment. Data collection should generally be prospective, but ambispective and retrospective approaches are sometimes appropriate. In addition to determinants of primary interest [the test(s) under study] possible modifiers of test accuracy and confounding variables must be specified. The reference standard procedure should be independent from the test results. Applying a reference standard can be difficult in case of classification errors, lack of a clear pathophysiologic concept, incorporation bias, or invasive or complex investigations. Possible solutions are: an independent expert panel, and the delayed type cross-sectional study (clinical follow-up). Also, a prognostic criterion can be chosen. For studies to be relevant for practice, inclusion criteria must be based on "intention to diagnose" or "intention to screen." The recruitment procedure is preferably a consecutive series of presenting patients or a target population screening, respectively. Sample size estimation should be routine. Analysis has to be focused on the contrast of interest. Estimating test accuracy and prediction of outcome need different approaches. External (clinical) validation requires repeated studies in other, similar populations. Also, systematic reviews and meta-analysis have a role. To enable readers of diagnostic research reports to evaluate whether methodological key issues were addressed, authors are advised to follow the STARD guidelines.

摘要

在诊断准确性研究中,感兴趣的对比可以是以下之一:单一测试对比;比较两个或更多单一测试;在先前诊断之外进行进一步测试;以及比较替代诊断策略。必须明确所研究的临床诊断问题。应区分“极端对比”研究(如早期阶段评估)和“临床实践”环境中的研究(评估临床价值)。设计选项包括:(1)对整个研究人群进行调查;(2)病例对照方法;或(3)基于测试的入组。数据收集一般应是前瞻性的,但有时采用双向性和回顾性方法也是合适的。除了主要感兴趣的决定因素(所研究的测试)之外,还必须明确测试准确性的可能修饰因素和混杂变量。参考标准程序应独立于测试结果。在存在分类错误、缺乏明确的病理生理概念、纳入偏倚或侵入性或复杂检查的情况下,应用参考标准可能会很困难。可能的解决办法是:设立独立专家小组,以及采用延迟型横断面研究(临床随访)。此外,可以选择一个预后标准。为使研究与实践相关,纳入标准必须基于“诊断意图”或“筛查意图”。招募程序最好分别是一系列连续就诊的患者或目标人群筛查。样本量估计应成为常规操作。分析必须聚焦于感兴趣的对比。估计测试准确性和预测结果需要不同的方法。外部(临床)验证需要在其他类似人群中重复进行研究。此外,系统评价和荟萃分析也发挥着作用。为使诊断研究报告的读者能够评估是否解决了方法学关键问题,建议作者遵循STARD指南。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验