Thrombosis Program, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Trials. 2012 Aug 16;13:137. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-137.
Clinicians, patients, governments, third-party payers, and the public take for granted that diagnostic tests are accurate, safe and effective. However, we may be seriously misled if we are relying on robust study design to ensure accurate, safe, and effective diagnostic tests. Properly conducted, randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for assessing the effectiveness and safety of interventions, yet are rarely conducted in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Instead, diagnostic cohort studies are commonly performed to assess the characteristics of a diagnostic test including sensitivity and specificity. While diagnostic cohort studies can inform us about the relative accuracy of an experimental diagnostic intervention compared to a reference standard, they do not inform us about whether the differences in accuracy are clinically important, or the degree of clinical importance (in other words, the impact on patient outcomes). In this commentary we provide the advantages of the diagnostic randomized controlled trial and suggest a greater awareness and uptake in their conduct. Doing so will better ensure that patients are offered diagnostic procedures that will make a clinical difference.
临床医生、患者、政府、第三方付款人和公众认为诊断测试是准确、安全和有效的。然而,如果我们仅仅依赖稳健的研究设计来确保诊断测试的准确性、安全性和有效性,我们可能会被严重误导。随机对照试验是评估干预措施有效性和安全性的金标准,但在诊断测试的评估中很少进行。相反,通常进行诊断队列研究来评估诊断测试的特征,包括敏感性和特异性。虽然诊断队列研究可以告诉我们与参考标准相比,实验性诊断干预的相对准确性,但它们不能告诉我们准确性的差异是否具有临床意义,或者临床意义的程度(换句话说,对患者结果的影响)。在这篇评论中,我们提供了诊断性随机对照试验的优势,并建议更多地意识到并采用它们。这样做将更好地确保为患者提供具有临床意义的诊断程序。