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

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Before 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.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We discuss the rationale for measuring patient management, describe the common study designs and provide guidance about how this evidence should be reported.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Interpretation 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.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Patient 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.</p

How does study quality affect the results of a diagnostic meta-analysis?

Background: The use of systematic literature review to inform evidence based practice in diagnostics is rapidly expanding. Although the primary diagnostic literature is extensive, studies are often of low methodological quality or poorly reported. There has been no rigorously evaluated, evidence based tool to assess the methodological quality of diagnostic studies. The primary objective of this study was to determine the extent to which variations in the quality of primary studies impact the results of a diagnostic meta-analysis and whether this differs with diagnostic test type. A secondary objective was to contribute to the evaluation of QUADAS, an evidence-based tool for the assessment of quality in diagnostic accuracy studies. Methods: This study was conducted as part of large systematic review of tests used in the diagnosis and further investigation of urinary tract infection (UTI) in children. All studies included in this review were assessed using QUADAS, an evidence-based tool for the assessment of quality in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. The impact of individual components of QUADAS on a summary measure of diagnostic accuracy was investigated using regression analysis. The review divided the diagnosis and further investigation of UTI into the following three clinical stages: diagnosis of UTI, localisation of infection, and further investigation of the UTI. Each stage used different types of diagnostic test, which were considered to involve different quality concerns. Results: Many of the studies included in our review were poorly reported. The proportion of QUADAS items fulfilled was similar for studies in different sections of the review. However, as might be expected, the individual items fulfilled differed between the three clinical stages. Regression analysis found that different items showed a strong association with test performance for the different tests evaluated. These differences were observed both within and between the three clinical stages assessed by the review. The results of regression analyses were also affected by whether or not a weighting (by sample size) was applied. Our analysis was severely limited by the completeness of reporting and the differences between the index tests evaluated and the reference standards used to confirm diagnoses in the primary studies. Few tests were evaluated by sufficient studies to allow meaningful use of meta-analytic pooling and investigation of heterogeneity. This meant that further analysis to investigate heterogeneity could only be undertaken using a subset of studies, and that the findings are open to various interpretations. Conclusion: Further work is needed to investigate the influence of methodological quality on the results of diagnostic meta-analyses. Large data sets of well-reported primary studies are needed to address this question. Without significant improvements in the completeness of reporting of primary studies, progress in this area will be limited

Post-mortem assessment in vascular dementia: advances and aspirations.

BACKGROUND: Cerebrovascular lesions are a frequent finding in the elderly population. However, the impact of these lesions on cognitive performance, the prevalence of vascular dementia, and the pathophysiology behind characteristic in vivo imaging findings are subject to controversy. Moreover, there are no standardised criteria for the neuropathological assessment of cerebrovascular disease or its related lesions in human post-mortem brains, and conventional histological techniques may indeed be insufficient to fully reflect the consequences of cerebrovascular disease. DISCUSSION: Here, we review and discuss both the neuropathological and in vivo imaging characteristics of cerebrovascular disease, prevalence rates of vascular dementia, and clinico-pathological correlations. We also discuss the frequent comorbidity of cerebrovascular pathology and Alzheimer's disease pathology, as well as the difficult and controversial issue of clinically differentiating between Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia and mixed Alzheimer's disease/vascular dementia. Finally, we consider additional novel approaches to complement and enhance current post-mortem assessment of cerebral human tissue. CONCLUSION: Elucidation of the pathophysiology of cerebrovascular disease, clarification of characteristic findings of in vivo imaging and knowledge about the impact of combined pathologies are needed to improve the diagnostic accuracy of clinical diagnoses