Clinical Chemistry
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 28: 1272-1276, 1982;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zweig, M. H.
Right arrow Articles by Robertson, E. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zweig, M. H.
Right arrow Articles by Robertson, E. A.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 28, 1272-1276, Copyright © 1982 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Why we need better test evaluations

MH Zweig and EA Robertson

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.


The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
J. G. Lijmer, M. Leeflang, and P. M. M. Bossuyt
Proposals for a Phased Evaluation of Medical Tests
Med Decis Making, September 1, 2009; 29(5): E13 - E21.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
G. Soletormos and F. Bach
Cerebrospinal Fluid Cytokeratins for Diagnosis of Patients with Central Nervous System Metastases from Breast Cancer
Clin. Chem., May 1, 2001; 47(5): 948 - 950.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
P. E. Politser
A Structural Method to Guide Test Evaluation
Med Decis Making, January 1, 1985; 5(4): 417 - 436.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Intern MedHome page
M. L. Fisher, M. H. Kelemen, D. Collins, F. Morris, G. W. Moran, N. H. Carliner, and G. D. Plotnick
Routine Serum Enzyme Tests in the Diagnosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction: Cost-Effectiveness
Arch Intern Med, August 1, 1983; 143(8): 1541 - 1543.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1982 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.