Why we need better test evaluations.

Why we need better test evaluations. Abstract A laboratory test is clinically useful only if it successfully answers a question of consequence to patient management. Unfortunately, the results and conclusions of many published test evaluations are misleading or of uncertain validity because common-sense principles of study design are overlooked. This is illustrated by examples from recent literature. We suggest that tests should be evaluated with prospective studies of patients representative of the population for which the test will ultimately be used. The clinical question to be addressed by the test should be clearly stated, and then answered for each patient by means independent of the test being evaluated. When comparing tests with each other, decision levels should be chosen to give either the same sensitivity or specificity for each. The use of soundly designed protocols for the clinical evaluation of tests provides the information needed to select the most effective tests. © 1982 The American Association for Clinical Chemistry « Previous | Next Article » Table of Contents This Article Clinical Chemistry June 1982 vol. 28 no. 6 1272-1276 » Abstract PDF Services Email this article to a friend Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Download to citation manager Responses No responses published Citing Articles Load citing article information Citing articles via Web of Science Citing articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Zweig, M. H. Articles by Robertson, E. A. Search for related content PubMed PubMed citation Articles by Zweig, M. H. Articles by Robertson, E. A. Related Content Load related web page information Follow Us Clinical Chemistry Trainee Council Register Today! www.traineecouncil.org Information for Authors Submit a Manuscript Editorial Board Clinical Case Studies Clinical Chemistry Guide to Scientific Writing Journal Club Podcasts Translated Content Annual Meeting Abstracts Permissions and Reprints Advertising Copyright © 2012 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Clinical Chemistry American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Why we need better test evaluations.

Loading next page...
1
 
/lp/american-association-for-clinical-chemistry/why-we-need-better-test-evaluations-r0Q0BqE6ZA
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract A laboratory test is clinically useful only if it successfully answers a question of consequence to patient management. Unfortunately, the results and conclusions of many published test evaluations are misleading or of uncertain validity because common-sense principles of study design are overlooked. This is illustrated by examples from recent literature. We suggest that tests should be evaluated with prospective studies of patients representative of the population for which the test will ultimately be used. The clinical question to be addressed by the test should be clearly stated, and then answered for each patient by means independent of the test being evaluated. When comparing tests with each other, decision levels should be chosen to give either the same sensitivity or specificity for each. The use of soundly designed protocols for the clinical evaluation of tests provides the information needed to select the most effective tests. © 1982 The American Association for Clinical Chemistry « Previous | Next Article » Table of Contents This Article Clinical Chemistry June 1982 vol. 28 no. 6 1272-1276 » Abstract PDF Services Email this article to a friend Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Download to citation manager Responses No responses published Citing Articles Load citing article information Citing articles via Web of Science Citing articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Zweig, M. H. Articles by Robertson, E. A. Search for related content PubMed PubMed citation Articles by Zweig, M. H. Articles by Robertson, E. A. Related Content Load related web page information Follow Us Clinical Chemistry Trainee Council Register Today! www.traineecouncil.org Information for Authors Submit a Manuscript Editorial Board Clinical Case Studies Clinical Chemistry Guide to Scientific Writing Journal Club Podcasts Translated Content Annual Meeting Abstracts Permissions and Reprints Advertising Copyright © 2012 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Journal

Clinical ChemistryAmerican Association for Clinical Chemistry

Published: Jun 1, 1982

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off