Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22333319›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2012

Using patient management as a surrogate for patient health outcomes in diagnostic test evaluation.

Lukas P Staub, Sarah J Lord, R John Simes, Suzanne Dyer, Nehmat Houssami, Robert Y M Chen, Les Irwig

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Intended Versus Inferred Treatment AfterJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2018
    Article
  8. Hospice Admission and Survival AfterJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2018
    Article
  9. The efficacy of bedside chest ultrasound: from accuracy to outcomes.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2016
    Review
  10. Evaluation of the Efficacy of Targeted Imaging Agents.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2016
    Review
  11. Reply.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2016
    Article
  12. Intended versus inferred care after PET performed for initial staging in the National Oncologic PET Registry.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2013
    Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lukas P StaubNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. lukas.staub@ctc.usyd.edu.au
Sarah J Lord
R John Simes
Suzanne Dyer
Nehmat Houssami
Robert Y M Chen
Les Irwig

Funding

Medical Research Council 571044
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBefore a new test is introduced in clinical practice, evidence is needed to demonstrate that its use will lead to improvements in patient health outcomes. Studies reporting test accuracy may not be sufficient, and clinical trials of tests that measure patient health outcomes are rarely feasible. Therefore, the consequences of testing on patient management are often investigated as an intermediate step in the pathway. There is a lack of guidance on the interpretation of this evidence, and patient management studies often neglect a discussion of the limitations of measuring patient management as a surrogate for health outcomes.

methodsWe discuss the rationale for measuring patient management, describe the common study designs and provide guidance about how this evidence should be reported.

resultsInterpretation of patient management studies relies on the condition that patient management is a valid surrogate for downstream patient benefits. This condition presupposes two critical assumptions: the test improves diagnostic accuracy; and the measured changes in patient management improve patient health outcomes. The validity of this evidence depends on the certainty around these critical assumptions and the ability of the study design to minimise bias. Three common designs are test RCTs that measure patient management as a primary endpoint, diagnostic before-after studies that compare planned patient management before and after testing, and accuracy studies that are extended to report on the actual treatment or further tests received following a positive and negative test result.

conclusionsPatient management can be measured as a surrogate outcome for test evaluation if its limitations are recognised. The potential consequences of a positive and negative test result on patient management should be pre-specified and the potential patient benefits of these management changes clearly stated. Randomised comparisons will provide higher quality evidence about differences in patient management using the new test than observational studies. Regardless of the study design used, the critical assumption that patient management is a valid surrogate for downstream patient benefits or harms must be discussed in these studies.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CarePatient Care PlanningQuality Assurance, Health CareBiasDecision Support TechniquesDiagnostic Tests, RoutineEvidence-Based PracticeHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicProgram EvaluationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID22333319
PMCPMC3313870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.