Emergency Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Emerg Med J. 2019 Jul;36(7):431-434. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2019-208446. Epub 2019 Jul 13.
In this two-part series on sources of bias in studies of diagnostic test performance, we outline common errors and optimal conditions during three study phases: patient selection, interpretation of the index test and disease verification by a gold standard. Here in part 1, biases associated with suboptimal participant selection are discussed through the lens of partial verification bias and spectrum bias, both of which increase the proportion of participants who are the 'sickest of the sick' or the 'wellest of the well.' Especially through retrospective methodology, partial verification introduces bias by including patients who are test positive by a gold standard, since patients with a positive index test are more likely to go on to further gold standard testing. Spectrum bias is frequently introduced through case-control design, dropping of indeterminate results or convenience sampling. After reading part 1, the informed clinician should be better able to judge the quality of a diagnostic test study, its inherent limitations and whether its results could be generalisable to their practice. Part 2 will describe how interpretation of the index test and disease verification by a gold standard can contribute to diagnostic test bias.
在这篇关于诊断测试性能研究中偏倚来源的两部分系列文章中,我们概述了在三个研究阶段中常见的错误和最佳条件:患者选择、对指标测试的解释以及通过金标准对疾病的验证。在第 1 部分中,我们将通过部分验证偏倚和谱偏倚的视角讨论与参与者选择不充分相关的偏倚,这两种偏倚都会增加“最病重的患者”或“最健康的患者”的比例。部分验证特别通过回顾性方法引入了偏倚,因为它包括了通过金标准检测呈阳性的患者,因为阳性指标测试的患者更有可能进一步接受金标准检测。谱偏倚通常通过病例对照设计、不确定结果的舍弃或方便抽样引入。阅读完第 1 部分后,有见识的临床医生应该能够更好地判断诊断测试研究的质量、其内在局限性以及研究结果是否可以推广到他们的实践中。第 2 部分将描述如何通过金标准对指标测试的解释和疾病验证来导致诊断测试偏倚。