Skip to main content
×
×
Home

THE “LINKED EVIDENCE APPROACH” TO ASSESS MEDICAL TESTS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

  • Tracy Merlin (a1), Samuel Lehman (a1), Janet E. Hiller (a2) and Philip Ryan (a3)
Abstract

Objectives: A linked evidence approach (LEA) is the synthesis of systematically acquired evidence on the accuracy of a medical test, its impact on clinical decision making and the effectiveness of consequent treatment options. We aimed to assess the practical utility of this methodology and to develop a decision framework to guide its use.

Methods: As Australia has lengthy experience with LEA, we reviewed health technology assessment (HTA) reports informing reimbursement decisions by the Medical Services Advisory Committee (August 2005 to March 2012). Eligibility was determined according to predetermined criteria and data were extracted on test characteristics, evaluation methodologies, and reported difficulties. Fifty percent of the evidence-base was independently analyzed by a second reviewer.

Results: Evaluations of medical tests for diagnostic (62 percent), staging (27 percent), and screening (6 percent) purposes were available for eighty-nine different clinical indications. Ninety-six percent of the evaluations used either the full LEA methodology or an abridged version (where evidence is linked through to management changes but not patient outcomes). Sixty-one percent had the full evidence linkage. Twenty-five percent of test evaluations were considered problematic; all involving LEA (n = 22). Problems included: determining test accuracy with an imperfect reference standard (41 percent); assessing likely treatment effectiveness in test positive patients when the new test is more accurate than the comparator (18 percent); and determining probable health benefits in those symptomatic patients ruled out using the test (13 percent). A decision framework was formulated to address these problems.

Conclusions: LEA is useful for evaluating medical tests but a stepped approach should be followed to determine what evidence is required for the synthesis.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      THE “LINKED EVIDENCE APPROACH” TO ASSESS MEDICAL TESTS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      THE “LINKED EVIDENCE APPROACH” TO ASSESS MEDICAL TESTS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      THE “LINKED EVIDENCE APPROACH” TO ASSESS MEDICAL TESTS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
The online version of this article is published within an Open Access environment subject to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence . The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use.
References
Hide All
1.AHRQ. Methods guide for medical test reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2010.
2.CDC. ACCE model list of 44 Targeted questions aimed at a comprehensive review of genetic testing [internet]. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Office of Public Health Genomics; 2010. http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/gtesting/ACCE/acce_proj.htm. (accessed April 26, 2012).
3.FDA. In vitro companion diagnostic devices: Draft guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff [internet]. Rockville, Maryland: Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2011.
4.EUnetHTA. HTA core model for diagnostic technologies. Work Package 4. Copenhagen: European Network for Health Technology Assessment; 2008.
5.NICE. Interim methods statement (pilot). Version 8 [internet]. London: National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence Centre for Health Technology Evaluation, Diagnostics Assessment Programme; 2010.
6.MSAC. Guidelines for the assessment of diagnostic technologies. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia; August 2005.
7.Lord, SJ, Irwig, L, Bossuyt, PM. Using the principles of randomized controlled trial design to guide test evaluation. Med Decis Making. 2009;29:E1E12.
8.Staub, L, Dyer, S, Lord, S, Simes, RJ. Linking the evidence: Intermediate outcomes in medical test assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:5258.
9.Harris, R, Helfand, M, Woolf, S, et al.Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: A review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(Suppl):2135.
10.Fryback, DG, Thornbury, JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:8894.
11.di Ruffano, L, Davenport, C, Eising, A, Hyde, C, Deeks, J. A capture-recapture analysis demonstrated that randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of diagnostic tests on patient outcomes are rare. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:282287.
12.Merlin, T, Farah, C, Schubert, C, Mitchell, A, Hiller, J, Ryan, P. Assessing personalized medicines in Australia: A national framework for reviewing codependent technologies. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:333342.
13.Marinovich, L.Optical coherence tomography [internet]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009. www.msac.gov.au. (accessed April 2, 2012).
14.Buckley, L, Wang, S, Merlin, T. Molecular testing for myeloproliferative disease. Part A – Polycythaemia vera, essential thrombocythaemia and primary myelofibrosis. Part B - Systemic mast cell disease, hypereosinophilic syndrome and chronic eosinophilic leukaemia [internet]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009. www.msac.gov.au. (accessed April 2, 2012).
15.Schoeppe, S, Lewis, S, Marinovich, L, Wortley, S. Positron emission tomography for cervical cancer [internet]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2010. www.msac.gov.au. (accessed April 2, 2012).
16.Lord, S, Lei, W, Griffiths, A, et al.Breast magnetic resonance imaging [internet]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2007. www.msac.gov.au. (accessed April 2, 2012).
17.Merlin, T, Moss, J, Brooks, A, Newton, S, Hedayati, H, Hiller, J. B-type natriuretic peptide assays in the diagnosis of heart failure [internet]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2008. www.msac.gov.au. (accessed April 26, 2012).
18.Marinovich, L, Wortley, S. Positron emission tomography for glioma. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2010.
19.Gillespie, J, Guarnieri, C, Phillips, H, Bhatti, T. Urinary metabolic profiling for detection of metabolic disorders [internet]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009. www.msac.gov.au. (accessed April 2, 2012).
20.Gillespie, J, Smala, A, Walters, N, Birinyi-Strachan, L. Hepatitis B virus DNA testing [internet]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2007. www.msac.gov.au. (accessed March 30, 2012).
21.Craig, D, McDaid, C, Fonseca, T, Stock, C, Duffy, S, Woolacott, N. Are adverse effects incorporated in economic models? A survey of current practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:323329.
22.Bossuyt, PM, Irwig, L, Craig, J, Glasziou, P. Comparative accuracy: Assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways. BMJ. 2006;332:10891092.
23.Micheel, C, Ball, J, eds. Evaluation of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in chronic disease. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 2010.
24.Anderson, L, Petticrew, M, Rehfuess, E, et al.Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2:3342.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed