Abstract
Abstract
Background
Many clinical pathways for the diagnosis of disease are based on diagnostic tests that are performed in sequence. The performance of the full diagnostic sequence is dictated by the diagnostic performance of each test in the sequence as well as the conditional dependence between them, given true disease status. Resulting estimates of performance, such as the sensitivity and specificity of the test sequence, are key parameters in health-economic evaluations. We conducted a methodological review of statistical methods for assessing the performance of diagnostic tests performed in sequence, with the aim of guiding data analysts towards classes of methods that may be suitable given the design and objectives of the testing sequence.
Methods
We searched PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for relevant papers describing methodology for analysing sequences of diagnostic tests. Papers were classified by the characteristics of the method used, and these were used to group methods into themes. We illustrate some of the methods using data from a cohort study of repeat faecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients, to highlight the importance of allowing for conditional dependence in test sequences and adjustment for an imperfect reference standard.
Results
Five overall themes were identified, detailing methods for combining multiple tests in sequence, estimating conditional dependence, analysing sequences of diagnostic tests used for risk assessment, analysing test sequences in conjunction with an imperfect or incomplete reference standard, and meta-analysis of test sequences.
Conclusions
This methodological review can be used to help researchers identify suitable analytic methods for studies that use diagnostic tests performed in sequence.
Funder
NIHR Community Healthcare MedTech and In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust
NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust
NIHR Academic Clinical Lectureship
Cancer Research UK
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference111 articles.
1. Knottnerus JA, van Weel C, Muris JWM. Evaluation of diagnostic procedures. BMJ. 2002;324:477.
2. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig L, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology. 2015;277:826–32.
3. Gopalakrishna G, Langendam MW, Scholten RJPM, Bossuyt PMM, Leeflang MMG. Defining the clinical pathway in Cochrane diagnostic accuracy reviews. Stat Med. 2012;32:1451–66.
4. Shinkins B, Yang Y, Abel L, Fanshawe TR. Evidence synthesis to inform model-based cost-effectiveness evaluations of diagnostic tests: a methodological review of health technology assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:56.
5. Xie X, Tiggelaar S, Guo J, Wang M, Vandersluis S, Ungar WJ. Developing economic models for assessing the cost-effectiveness of multiple diagnostic tests: methods and applications. Med Decis Making. 2022;42:861–71.