BMJ  2008;336:569-570 (15 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.39513.576701.80

Editorials

Evaluating laboratory diagnostic tests

International collaboration to set standards and methods is urgently needed

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Recent technological developments have created a new generation of laboratory diagnostics, which promise to provide better ways of detecting diseases and monitoring response to treatment. These tests create the possibility of earlier and more accurate diagnosis, and of shifting health care from hospitals to the community—making it more effective, efficient, and accessible. But two recent reports—one of which is published this week—highlight the relatively low importance given by clinicians and policy makers to evaluating laboratory diagnostic tests.1 2 In an accompanying analysis, Melzer and colleagues outline the problems caused by this, specifically relating to the evaluation of genetic tests, and propose ways of overcoming them.3

So how should we evaluate tests? First, we must be clear about the purpose of the test—whether it is meant to diagnose, monitor, guide prognosis or treatment, or predict risk. Then the context in which it is used needs to be specified—for example, the disorder or . . . [Full text of this article]

Tom Walley, director, National Institute for Health Research health technologies assessment programme

1 University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GF

twalley@liv.ac.uk


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Selecting diagnostic tests for evaluation
Nicholas Summerton
BMJ 2008 336: 683. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Genetic tests for common diseases: new insights, old concerns
David Melzer, Stuart Hogarth, Katherine Liddell, Tom Ling, Simon Sanderson, and Ron L Zimmern
BMJ 2008 336: 590-593. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting
Susan Mallett, Jonathan J Deeks, Steve Halligan, Sally Hopewell, Victoria Cornelius, and Douglas G Altman
BMJ 2006 333: 413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Ng, A., Swanevelder, J. (2009). Perioperative echocardiography for non-cardiac surgery: what is its role in routine haemodynamic monitoring?. Br J Anaesth 102: 731-734 [Full text]  
  • Soreide, K. (2009). Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis in diagnostic, prognostic and predictive biomarker research. J. Clin. Pathol. 62: 1-5 [Full text]  
  • Price, C. P., Christenson, R. H. (2008). Evaluating New Diagnostic Technologies: Perspectives in the UK and US. Clin. Chem. 54: 1421-1423 [Full text]  
  • Summerton, N. (2008). Selecting diagnostic tests for evaluation. BMJ 336: 683-683 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Selecting diagnostic tests for evaluation
Nicholas Summerton
bmj.com, 14 Mar 2008 [Full text]
Genomic Horoscopes.
Saty Satya-Murti
bmj.com, 15 Mar 2008 [Full text]
Evaluating diagnostic tests – gaps in understanding
Huw Llewelyn
bmj.com, 15 Mar 2008 [Full text]
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ