GRADE: assessing the quality of evidence for diagnostic recommendations
- 1 December 2008
- journal article
- duplicate publication
- Published by BMJ in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
- Vol. 13 (6), 162-163
- https://doi.org/10.1136/ebm.13.6.162-a
Abstract
Clinicians are trained to use tests for screening and diagnosis, identifying physiological derangements, establishing a prognosis, and monitoring illness and treatment response by assessing signs and symptoms, imaging, biochemistry, pathology, and psychological testing techniques.2 Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios are among the challenging terms that diagnostic studies typically deliver to clinicians, and all have to do with diagnostic accuracy. Not only do clinicians have difficulties remembering the definitions and calculations for these terms, these concepts are often complex to apply to individual patients. Many clinicians order a test despite uncertainty about how to interpret the result, and they also contribute to testing errors …Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- Testing process errors and their harms and consequences reported from family medicine practices: a study of the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research NetworkQuality and Safety in Health Care, 2008
- Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategiesBMJ, 2008
- Learning needs in clinical biochemistry for doctors in foundation yearsAnnals of Clinical Biochemistry: International Journal of Laboratory Medicine, 2008
- Huntington's DiseaseSeminars in Neurology, 2007
- Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studiesCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2006
- Psychological consequences and predictors of adverse events in the first 5 years after predictive testing for Huntington's diseaseClinical Genetics, 2003
- The accuracy of noncontrast helical computed tomography versus intravenous pyelography in the diagnosis of suspected acute urolithiasis: A meta-analysisAnnals of Emergency Medicine, 2002
- Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening testsBMJ, 2001
- Paradox of a better test for Huntington's diseaseJournal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 2000
- Empirical Evidence of Design-Related Bias in Studies of Diagnostic TestsJAMA, 1999