Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36803886›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2023

Health technology assessment of diagnostic tests: a state of the art review of methods guidance from international organizations.

Lavinia Ferrante di Ruffano, Isobel M Harris, Zhivko Zhelev, Clare Davenport, Sue Mallett, Jamie Peters, Yemisi Takwoingi, Jon Deeks, Chris Hyde

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Impact ofFrontiers in public health · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Val (EU) xit: do we need an international ISPOR value flower?Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Lavinia Ferrante di RuffanoYork Health Economics Consortium, University of York, York, UK.
Isobel M HarrisTest Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Zhivko ZhelevExeter Test Group, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Clare DavenportTest Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Sue MallettCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.
Jamie PetersExeter Test Group, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Yemisi TakwoingiTest Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Jon DeeksTest Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Chris HydeExeter Test Group, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7349-0616

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/T025328/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify which international health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are undertaking evaluations of medical tests, summarize commonalities and differences in methodological approach, and highlight examples of good practice.

methodsA methodological review incorporating: systematic identification of HTA guidance documents mentioning evaluation of tests; identification of key contributing organizations and abstraction of approaches to all essential HTA steps; summary of similarities and differences between organizations; and identification of important emergent themes which define the current state of the art and frontiers where further development is needed.

resultsSeven key organizations were identified from 216 screened. The main themes were: elucidation of claims of test benefits; attitude to direct and indirect evidence of clinical effectiveness (including evidence linkage); searching; quality assessment; and health economic evaluation. With the exception of dealing with test accuracy data, approaches were largely based on general approaches to HTA with few test-specific modifications. Elucidation of test claims and attitude to direct and indirect evidence are where we identified the biggest dissimilarities in approach.

conclusionsThere is consensus on some aspects of HTA of tests, such as dealing with test accuracy, and examples of good practice which HTA organizations new to test evaluation can emulate. The focus on test accuracy contrasts with universal acknowledgment that it is not a sufficient evidence base for test evaluation. There are frontiers where methodological development is urgently required, notably integrating direct and indirect evidence and standardizing approaches to evidence linkage.

Indexed as

AttitudeTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalConsensusCost-Benefit AnalysisInternational Agenciesdiagnostic testshealth technology assessmentmethods

Identifiers

PMID36803886
PMCPMC7614237

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.