IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v29y2009i5pe1-e12.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using the Principles of Randomized Controlled Trial Design to Guide Test Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah J. Lord

    (National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Level 6, Medical Foundation Building, 92-94 Parramatta Rd, Locked Bag 77, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia, slord@ctc.usyd.edu.au)

  • Les Irwig
  • Patrick M. M. Bossuyt

Abstract

The decision to use a new test should be based on evidence that it will improve patient outcomes or produce other benefits without adversely affecting patients. In principle, long-term randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of test-plus-treatment strategies offer ideal evidence of the benefits of introducing a new test relative to current best practice. However, long-term RCTs may not always be necessary. The authors advocate using the hypothetical RCT as a conceptual framework to identify what types of comparative evidence are needed for test evaluation. Evaluation begins by stating the major claims for the new test and determining whether it will be used as a replacement, add-on, or triage test to achieve these claims. A flow diagram of this hypothetical RCT is constructed to show the essential design elements, including population, prior tests, new test and existing test strategies, and primary and secondary outcomes. Critical steps in the pathway between testing and patient outcomes, such as differences in test accuracy, changes in treatment, or avoidance of other tests, are displayed for each test strategy. All differences between the tests at these critical steps are identified and prioritized to determine the most important questions for evaluation. Long-term RCTs will not be necessary if it is valid to use other sources of evidence to address these questions. Validity will depend on issues such as the spectrum of patients identified by the old and new test strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah J. Lord & Les Irwig & Patrick M. M. Bossuyt, 2009. "Using the Principles of Randomized Controlled Trial Design to Guide Test Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(5), pages 1-12, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:5:p:e1-e12
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09340584
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X09340584
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X09340584?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mark Helfand, 2009. "Web Exclusive White Paper Series on Diagnostic Test Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(5), pages 634-635, September.
    2. Thomas A. Trikalinos & Uwe Siebert & Joseph Lau, 2009. "Decision-Analytic Modeling to Evaluate Benefits and Harms of Medical Tests: Uses and Limitations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(5), pages 22-29, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:5:p:e1-e12. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.