Abstract
Diagnostic tests are evolving with betterment of technology, quest for patient safety with less invasive medicine, and evolution of new diseases. It is important to assess diagnostic accuracy of a new test, and clinical impact of introduction of new test on outcomes and cost. A diagnostic study is planned for the index test based on place of new test in diagnostic pathway (screening, triage, diagnostic or add-on test) and established information of the test. A reference standard is used to classify population into diseased and healthy, and the discriminating ability of index test is measured. A sample size is calculated for expected sensitivity/specificity, margin of error and prevalence of disease in population. For dichotomous outcomes, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratio are used to describe diagnostic accuracy. Efforts should be made to avoid common forms of bias including spectrum bias and partial verification bias, and blinding of observers should preferably be done.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Paracchini V, Seia M, Raimondi S, et al. Cystic fibrosis newborn screening: Distribution of blood immunoreactive trypsinogen concentrations in hypertrypsinemic neonates. JIMD Rep. 2012;4:17–23.
Macedo ACL, Gonçalves JCN, Bavaresco DV, Grande et al. Accuracy of mRNA HPV tests for triage of precursor lesions and cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oncol. 2019;2019:6935030.
Bossuyt PM, Irwig L, Craig J, Glasziou P. Comparative accuracy: Assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways. BMJ. 2006;332:1089–92.
Momeni A, Pincus M, Libien J. Designing diagnostic studies. In: Momeni A, Pincus M, Libien J, editors. Introduction to Statistical Methods in Pathology. Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 279–92.
Rueegg CS, Kuehni CE, Gallati S, et al. Comparison of two sweat test systems for the diagnosis of cystic fibrosis in newborns. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2019;54:264–72.
Lodha R, Mukherjee A, Saini D, et al. Role of the QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In-Tube test in the diagnosis of intrathoracic childhood tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2013;17:1383–8.
Briel M, Schuetz P, Mueller B, et al. Procalcitonin-guided antibiotic use vs a standard approach for acute respiratory tract infections in primary care. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:2000–7.
Caraguel CGB, Vanderstichel R. The two-step Fagan’s nomogram: Ad hoc interpretation of a diagnostic test result without calculation. Evid Based Med. 2013;18:125–8.
Korevaar DA, Gopalakrishna G, Cohen JF, Bossuyt PM. Targeted test evaluation: A framework for designing diagnostic accuracy studies with clear study hypotheses. Diagn Progn Res. 2019;3:22.
Hajian-Tilaki K. Sample size estimation in diagnostic test studies of biomedical informatics. J Biomed Inform. 2014;48:193–204.
Virkki R, Juven T, Rikalainen H, Svedström E, Mertsola J, Ruuskanen O. Differentiation of bacterial and viral pneumonia in children. Thorax. 2002;57:438–41.
Habibzadeh F, Habibzadeh P, Yadollahie M. On determining the most appropriate test cut-off value: the case of tests with continuous results. Biochem Med. 2016;26:297–307.
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A non-parametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837–45.
Chikere CMU, Wilson K, Graziadio S, Vale L, Allen AJ. Diagnostic test evaluation methodology: A systematic review of methods employed to evaluate diagnostic tests in the absence of gold standard — An update. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0223832.
Bachmann LM, Puhan MA, ter Riet G, Bossuyt PM. Sample sizes of studies on diagnostic accuracy: Literature survey. BMJ. 2006;332:1127–9.
Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005;37:360–3.
Giavarina D. Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Med. 2015;25:141–51.
Osei Sekyere J, Maphalala N, Malinga LA, Mbelle NM, Maningi NE. A comparative evaluation of the new Genexpert MTB/RIF ultra and other rapid diagnostic assays for detecting tuberculosis in pulmonary and extra pulmonary specimens. Sci Rep. 2019;9:16587.
Bristol U of. QUADAS-2. Available from: https://www.bristol.ac.uk/population-health-sciences/projects/quadas/quadas-2/. Accessed July 30, 2020.
Schmidt RL, Factor RE. Understanding sources of bias in diagnostic accuracy studies. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137:558–65.
Korevaar DA, Cohen JF, Reitsma JB, et al. Updating standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy: the development of STARD 2015. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016;1:7.
Heus P, Damen JAAG, Pajouheshnia R, et al. Uniformity in measuring adherence to reporting guidelines: The example of TRIPOD for assessing completeness of reporting of prediction model studies. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e025611.
Funding
Funding: None
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Contributors: ND: was involved in review of literature, and writing manuscript; RL: was involved in review of literature, and writing and reviewing the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interest: None stated.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dhochak, N., Lodha, R. Study Designs: Diagnostic Studies. Indian Pediatr 59, 159–165 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-022-2449-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-022-2449-x