ArticleIEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine2016
More Than Just Accuracy: A Novel Method to Incorporate Multiple Test Attributes in Evaluating Diagnostic Tests Including Point of Care Tests.
Article in IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acceptability and Adherence to Home, Kiosk, and Clinic Blood Pressure Measurement Compared to 24-H Ambulatory Monitoring.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Trial
- Measuring patient-reported distress from breast magnetic resonance imaging: Development and validation of the MRI-related distress scale (MRI-DS).Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Acceptability of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis with patients and GPs: a qualitative interview study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Article
- Patient-centred outcomes of imaging tests: recommendations for patients, clinicians and researchers.BMJ quality & safety · 2023Article
- Article
- Nipple aspirate fluid and its use for the early detection of breast cancer.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Review
- Overdiagnosis paradigm: not suitable for decreasing the overuse of antibiotics.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2019Article
- Evaluating diagnostic strategies for early detection of cancer: the CanTest framework.BMC cancer · 2019Article
- Use of diagnostic tests and the appropriateness of the treatment decision in patients with suspected urinary tract infection in primary care in Denmark - observational study.BMC family practice · 2018Observational
- Common evidence gaps in point-of-care diagnostic test evaluation: a review of horizon scan reports.BMJ open · 2017Review
- Impact of HbA1c Testing at Point of Care on Diabetes Management.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2017Review
- Systematic review of the effects of care provided with and without diagnostic clinical prediction rules.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2017Review
- Collaborative Paradigm of Preventive, Personalized, and Precision Medicine With Point-of-Care Technologies.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current frameworks for evaluating diagnostic tests are constrained by a focus on diagnostic accuracy, and assume that all aspects of the testing process and test attributes are discrete and equally important. Determining the balance between the benefits and harms associated with new or existing tests has been overlooked. Yet, this is critically important information for stakeholders involved in developing, testing, and implementing tests. This is particularly important for point of care tests (POCTs) where tradeoffs exist between numerous aspects of the testing process and test attributes. We developed a new model that multiple stakeholders (e.g., clinicians, patients, researchers, test developers, industry, regulators, and health care funders) can use to visualize the multiple attributes of tests, the interactions that occur between these attributes, and their impacts on health outcomes. We use multiple examples to illustrate interactions between test attributes (test availability, test experience, and test results) and outcomes, including several POCTs. The model could be used to prioritize research and development efforts, and inform regulatory submissions for new diagnostics. It could potentially provide a way to incorporate the relative weights that various subgroups or clinical settings might place on different test attributes. Our model provides a novel way that multiple stakeholders can use to visualize test attributes, their interactions, and impacts on individual and population outcomes. We anticipate that this will facilitate more informed decision making around diagnostic tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.