Defining ranges for certainty ratings of diagnostic accuracy: A GRADE concept paper.

OBJECTIVE To clarify how the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) concept of certainty of evidence applies to certainty ratings of test accuracy. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING After initial brainstorming with GRADE Working Group members, we iteratively refined and clarified the approaches for defining ranges when assessing the certainty of evidence for test accuracy within a systematic review, health technology assessment, or guidelines. RESULTS Ranges can be defined both for single test accuracy and for comparative accuracy of multiple tests. For systematics reviews and health technology assessments, approaches for defining ranges include some that do not require value judgments regarding downstream health outcomes. Key challenges arise in the context of a guideline that requires ranges for sensitivity and specificity that are set considering possible effects on all critical outcomes. We illustrate possible approaches and provide an example from a systematic review of a direct comparison between two test strategies. CONCLUSIONS This GRADE concept paper provides a framework for assessing, presenting, and making decisions based on the certainty of evidence for test accuracy. More empirical research is needed to support future GRADE guidance on how to best operationalize the candidate approaches.

[1]  Holly Janes,et al.  Early-Phase Studies of Biomarkers: What Target Sensitivity and Specificity Values Might Confer Clinical Utility? , 2016, Clinical chemistry.

[2]  Enrico Compalati,et al.  Application of GRADE: Making evidence-based recommendations about diagnostic tests in clinical practice guidelines , 2011, Implementation science : IS.

[3]  Alonso Carrasco-Labra,et al.  Decision-Making about Healthcare Related Tests and Diagnostic Strategies: User Testing of GRADE Evidence Tables , 2014, PLoS ONE.

[4]  Wojtek Wiercioch,et al.  Decision-making about healthcare related tests and diagnostic strategies : A review of methodological and practical challenges , 2017 .

[5]  E. Antman,et al.  Impact of Spontaneous Extracranial Bleeding Events on Health State Utility in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: Results from the ENGAGE AF‐TIMI 48 Trial , 2017, Journal of the American Heart Association.

[6]  S. Kulasingam,et al.  Preferences for surveillance strategies for women treated for high-grade precancerous cervical lesions. , 2010, Gynecologic oncology.

[7]  Nancy Santesso,et al.  World Health Organization Guidelines for treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2–3 and screen‐and‐treat strategies to prevent cervical cancer , 2016, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[8]  H. Schünemann,et al.  Decision making about healthcare-related tests and diagnostic test strategies. Paper 5: a qualitative study with experts suggests that test accuracy data alone is rarely sufficient for decision making. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[9]  Reem A. Mustafa,et al.  Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of the accuracy of HPV tests, visual inspection with acetic acid, cytology, and colposcopy , 2016, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[10]  Patrick M M Bossuyt,et al.  Using the Principles of Randomized Controlled Trial Design to Guide Test Evaluation , 2009, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[11]  I. Staboulidou,et al.  The cost efficiency of HPV vaccines is significantly underestimated due to omission of conisation-associated prematurity with neonatal mortality and morbidity , 2012, Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics.

[12]  David Rind,et al.  GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[13]  A. Garg,et al.  Decision making about healthcare-related tests and diagnostic test strategies. Paper 4: International guidelines show variability in their approaches. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[14]  Yemisi Takwoingi,et al.  Empirical Evidence of the Importance of Comparative Studies of Diagnostic Test Accuracy , 2013, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[15]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  GRADE: grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  Mohammad Hassan Murad,et al.  GRADE guidelines: 22. The GRADE approach for tests and strategies-from test accuracy to patient-important outcomes and recommendations. , 2019, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[17]  H. Schünemann Interpreting GRADE's levels of certainty or quality of the evidence: GRADE for statisticians, considering review information size or less emphasis on imprecision? , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[18]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Target practice: choosing target conditions for test accuracy studies that are relevant to clinical practice , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[19]  Mohammed T Ansari,et al.  The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[20]  Gordon H. Guyatt,et al.  GRADE Guidelines: 19. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences-Risk of bias and indirectness. , 2018, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[21]  Elie A Akl,et al.  GRADE Guidelines: 16. GRADE evidence to decision frameworks for tests in clinical practice and public health. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[22]  G. Guyatt,et al.  GRADE guidelines: 20. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences-inconsistency, imprecision, and other domains. , 2018, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

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