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

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.

[1]  Les Irwig,et al.  Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[2]  Joseph Lau,et al.  Decision-Analytic Modeling to Evaluate Benefits and Harms of Medical Tests: Uses and Limitations , 2009, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[3]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Randomised comparisons of medical tests: sometimes invalid, not always efficient , 2000, The Lancet.

[4]  L. Irwig,et al.  Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review , 2006, The Lancet.

[5]  J. Douketis,et al.  A Diagnostic Strategy Involving a Quantitative Latex d-Dimer Assay Reliably Excludes Deep Venous Thrombosis , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[6]  Paul Glasziou,et al.  Comparative accuracy: assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  Sarah Lord,et al.  When Is Measuring Sensitivity and Specificity Sufficient To Evaluate a Diagnostic Test, and When Do We Need Randomized Trials? , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[8]  Kirsten McCaffery,et al.  Additional Patient Outcomes and Pathways in Evaluations of Testing , 2009, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[9]  J. Lijmer,et al.  Various randomized designs can be used to evaluate medical tests. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[10]  Marc Arbyn,et al.  Liquid Compared With Conventional Cervical Cytology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[11]  Marc Buyse,et al.  Gene signature evaluation as a prognostic tool: challenges in the design of the MINDACT trial , 2006, Nature Clinical Practice Oncology.

[12]  J. Peto,et al.  The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK , 2004, The Lancet.

[13]  S. Singletary,et al.  Standard for Breast Conservation Therapy in the Management of Invasive Breast Carcinoma , 2002, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[14]  Mark Stevenson,et al.  Measurement of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-invasive diagnostic testing strategies for deep vein thrombosis. , 2006, Health technology assessment.

[15]  S. Schnitt,et al.  Results of conservative surgery and radiation therapy for multiple synchronous cancers of one breast. , 1987, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  Anthony Howell,et al.  Effects of radiotherapy and surgery in early breast cancer. An overview of the randomized trials. , 1995, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  J. Sch GRADE: grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  G. Guyatt,et al.  The role of before-after studies of therapeutic impact in the evaluation of diagnostic technologies. , 1986, Journal of chronic diseases.

[19]  C. Mulrow,et al.  Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. , 2001, American journal of preventive medicine.

[20]  Nereo Segnan,et al.  Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.