Rational use of diagnostic tests for clinical decision making

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Buehler,Anna Maria
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: Ascef,Bruna de Oliveira, Oliveira Júnior,Haliton Alves de, Ferri,Cleusa Pinheiro, Fernandes,Jefferson Gomes
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302019000300452
Resumo: SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: To assist clinicians to make adequate interpretation of scientific evidence from studies that evaluate diagnostic tests in order to allow their rational use in clinical practice. METHODS: This is a narrative review focused on the main concepts, study designs, the adequate interpretation of the diagnostic accuracy data, and making inferences about the impact of diagnostic testing in clinical practice. RESULTS: Most of the literature that evaluates the performance of diagnostic tests uses cross-sectional design. Randomized clinical trials, in which diagnostic strategies are compared, are scarce. Cross-sectional studies measure diagnostic accuracy outcomes that are considered indirect and insufficient to define the real benefit for patients. Among the accuracy outcomes, the positive and negative likelihood ratios are the most useful for clinical management. Variations in the study's cross-sectional design, which may add bias to the results, as well as other domains that contribute to decreasing the reliability of the findings, are discussed, as well as how to extrapolate such accuracy findings on impact and consequences considered important for the patient. Aspects of costs, time to obtain results, patients’ preferences and values should preferably be considered in decision making. CONCLUSION: Knowing the methodology of diagnostic accuracy studies is fundamental, but not sufficient, for the rational use of diagnostic tests. There is a need to balance the desirable and undesirable consequences of tests results for the patients in order to favor a rational decision-making approach about which tests should be recommended in clinical practice.
id AMB-1_f64c1dd255acd5789cff6d41c8929a4b
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0104-42302019000300452
network_acronym_str AMB-1
network_name_str Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Rational use of diagnostic tests for clinical decision makingClinical Decision-MakingDiagnostic Tests, RoutineEvidence-Based PracticeSensitivity and specificityPredictive value of testsDiagnostic equipmentSUMMARY OBJECTIVE: To assist clinicians to make adequate interpretation of scientific evidence from studies that evaluate diagnostic tests in order to allow their rational use in clinical practice. METHODS: This is a narrative review focused on the main concepts, study designs, the adequate interpretation of the diagnostic accuracy data, and making inferences about the impact of diagnostic testing in clinical practice. RESULTS: Most of the literature that evaluates the performance of diagnostic tests uses cross-sectional design. Randomized clinical trials, in which diagnostic strategies are compared, are scarce. Cross-sectional studies measure diagnostic accuracy outcomes that are considered indirect and insufficient to define the real benefit for patients. Among the accuracy outcomes, the positive and negative likelihood ratios are the most useful for clinical management. Variations in the study's cross-sectional design, which may add bias to the results, as well as other domains that contribute to decreasing the reliability of the findings, are discussed, as well as how to extrapolate such accuracy findings on impact and consequences considered important for the patient. Aspects of costs, time to obtain results, patients’ preferences and values should preferably be considered in decision making. CONCLUSION: Knowing the methodology of diagnostic accuracy studies is fundamental, but not sufficient, for the rational use of diagnostic tests. There is a need to balance the desirable and undesirable consequences of tests results for the patients in order to favor a rational decision-making approach about which tests should be recommended in clinical practice.Associação Médica Brasileira2019-03-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302019000300452Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira v.65 n.3 2019reponame:Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)instname:Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)instacron:AMB10.1590/1806-9282.65.3.452info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessBuehler,Anna MariaAscef,Bruna de OliveiraOliveira Júnior,Haliton Alves deFerri,Cleusa PinheiroFernandes,Jefferson Gomeseng2019-04-08T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0104-42302019000300452Revistahttps://ramb.amb.org.br/ultimas-edicoes/#https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||ramb@amb.org.br1806-92820104-4230opendoar:2019-04-08T00:00Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) - Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Rational use of diagnostic tests for clinical decision making
title Rational use of diagnostic tests for clinical decision making
spellingShingle Rational use of diagnostic tests for clinical decision making
Buehler,Anna Maria
Clinical Decision-Making
Diagnostic Tests, Routine
Evidence-Based Practice
Sensitivity and specificity
Predictive value of tests
Diagnostic equipment
title_short Rational use of diagnostic tests for clinical decision making
title_full Rational use of diagnostic tests for clinical decision making
title_fullStr Rational use of diagnostic tests for clinical decision making
title_full_unstemmed Rational use of diagnostic tests for clinical decision making
title_sort Rational use of diagnostic tests for clinical decision making
author Buehler,Anna Maria
author_facet Buehler,Anna Maria
Ascef,Bruna de Oliveira
Oliveira Júnior,Haliton Alves de
Ferri,Cleusa Pinheiro
Fernandes,Jefferson Gomes
author_role author
author2 Ascef,Bruna de Oliveira
Oliveira Júnior,Haliton Alves de
Ferri,Cleusa Pinheiro
Fernandes,Jefferson Gomes
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Buehler,Anna Maria
Ascef,Bruna de Oliveira
Oliveira Júnior,Haliton Alves de
Ferri,Cleusa Pinheiro
Fernandes,Jefferson Gomes
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Clinical Decision-Making
Diagnostic Tests, Routine
Evidence-Based Practice
Sensitivity and specificity
Predictive value of tests
Diagnostic equipment
topic Clinical Decision-Making
Diagnostic Tests, Routine
Evidence-Based Practice
Sensitivity and specificity
Predictive value of tests
Diagnostic equipment
description SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: To assist clinicians to make adequate interpretation of scientific evidence from studies that evaluate diagnostic tests in order to allow their rational use in clinical practice. METHODS: This is a narrative review focused on the main concepts, study designs, the adequate interpretation of the diagnostic accuracy data, and making inferences about the impact of diagnostic testing in clinical practice. RESULTS: Most of the literature that evaluates the performance of diagnostic tests uses cross-sectional design. Randomized clinical trials, in which diagnostic strategies are compared, are scarce. Cross-sectional studies measure diagnostic accuracy outcomes that are considered indirect and insufficient to define the real benefit for patients. Among the accuracy outcomes, the positive and negative likelihood ratios are the most useful for clinical management. Variations in the study's cross-sectional design, which may add bias to the results, as well as other domains that contribute to decreasing the reliability of the findings, are discussed, as well as how to extrapolate such accuracy findings on impact and consequences considered important for the patient. Aspects of costs, time to obtain results, patients’ preferences and values should preferably be considered in decision making. CONCLUSION: Knowing the methodology of diagnostic accuracy studies is fundamental, but not sufficient, for the rational use of diagnostic tests. There is a need to balance the desirable and undesirable consequences of tests results for the patients in order to favor a rational decision-making approach about which tests should be recommended in clinical practice.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-03-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302019000300452
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302019000300452
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/1806-9282.65.3.452
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Médica Brasileira
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Médica Brasileira
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira v.65 n.3 2019
reponame:Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
instname:Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
instacron:AMB
instname_str Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
instacron_str AMB
institution AMB
reponame_str Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
collection Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) - Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||ramb@amb.org.br
_version_ 1754212833904558080