Ramos Rincón J M, Hernández Aguado I
Departamento de Salud Pública, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Murcia.
Med Clin (Barc). 1998 Jul 4;111(4):129-34.
Research on diagnostic tests have not reached the same methodological rigour as other areas of clinical research. Identification of more frequent and important methodological flaws could contribute to raise the quality of diagnostic test studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodology of diagnostic test studies published in MEDICINA CLINICA.
Forty two articles about diagnostic test studies published in MEDICINA CLINICA from 1992 through 1995 were selected. Two set of methodological criteria were applied (JAMA 1995; 274: 645-651 and Revisiones en Salud Pública 1993; 3: 243-262). Each article was independently evaluated by two observers.
Of the 42 articles evaluated, 33 determined sensitivity and specificity, and 9 only sensitivity. There was a well-defined gold-standard in the majority of the studies (90%) but it was not applied to all patients in 21% of them. Description of the diagnostic test evaluated was present in 79% and test reproducibility was assessed in only 19%. Source of patients, eligibility criteria for study subjects and spectrum composition were considered in 31, 36 and 31%, respectively. Avoidance of work-up bias and review bias was done in 69 and 36% of the articles. Only 12% considered indeterminate results, 50% reported test indexes for relevant clinical subgroups and statistical precision was provided in 17% of the studies.
Methodological quality of the research on diagnostic tests published in MEDICINA CLINICA is similar to that observed in the best world clinical journals. Nevertheless, there are opportunities to improve several aspects of study design and presentation that will facilitate its clinical applicability and general utility.
诊断试验的研究尚未达到与临床研究其他领域相同的方法学严谨性。识别更常见和重要的方法学缺陷有助于提高诊断试验研究的质量。本研究的目的是评估发表在《临床医学》上的诊断试验研究的方法学。
选取1992年至1995年发表在《临床医学》上的42篇关于诊断试验研究的文章。应用了两组方法学标准(《美国医学会杂志》1995年;274:645 - 651和《公共卫生评论》1993年;3:243 - 262)。每篇文章由两名观察者独立评估。
在评估的42篇文章中,33篇确定了敏感性和特异性,9篇仅确定了敏感性。大多数研究(90%)有明确的金标准,但其中21%的研究未将其应用于所有患者。79%的文章对所评估的诊断试验进行了描述,仅19%评估了试验的可重复性。分别有31%、36%和31%的文章考虑了患者来源、研究对象的纳入标准和谱构成。69%和36%的文章避免了检查前偏倚和回顾性偏倚。仅12%的文章考虑了不确定结果,50%报告了相关临床亚组的试验指标,17%的研究提供了统计精度。
发表在《临床医学》上的诊断试验研究的方法学质量与世界上最好的临床杂志中观察到的相似。然而,仍有机会改进研究设计和呈现的几个方面,这将有助于其临床适用性和普遍实用性。