Creating a free account will enable you to subscribe to our daily and weekly email newsletters, as well as customize your reading experience to show only the categories most relevant to you.
Signing up only take a few minutes, so why not give it a try and see what you've been missing out on.
Evaluation of diagnostic studies is often a challenge in diseases that are not defined by a specific test. Assessment of the accuracy of diagnostic tests is essential because they may be used to define who is considered to have a disease and receive treatment for it. However, measuring the accuracy of a diagnostic test requires an accurate gold standard, which defines which patients truly have and do not have the disease. Studies of diseases not defined by a specific test often rely on expert panels to establish the gold standard. In a systematic review and analysis of the diagnostic literature using expert panels to define the gold standard for a given disease, Loes Bertens and colleagues from University Medical Center Utrecht determined how expert panels were used in such studies and how well their process was described and reliability assessed.
The authors evaluated 81 diagnostic studies published up to May 31, 2012, including studies of diagnostic tests for psychiatric disorders (30 of 81 papers, 37%), half of which pertained to dementia, cardiovascular diseases (17 papers, 21%), and respiratory disorders (10 papers, 12%). They found that reporting was often incomplete, with 83% of studies missing at least some important information about the expert panel. In 75% of studies the panel consisted of three or fewer members, and panel members were blinded to the results of the test results being evaluated in only 31% of studies. Blinding is important because knowledge of the index text results could influence the panelists' decision as to whether the patient had the disease. Reproducibility of the decision process was assessed in only 21% of studies.
The authors state, "Complete and accurate reporting is a prerequisite for judging potential bias in a study and for allowing readers to apply the same study methods. In total, only 14 (17%) papers reported complete data on key issues such as the panel constitution, the information presented to the panel and the exact decision process to determine the final diagnosis." They also found that despite publication of reporting guidelines, the completeness of reporting did not improve over time, perhaps because the reporting guidelines do not include specific criteria for expert panel diagnoses. The authors make a number of recommendations to improve reporting of expert panel diagnosis. They conclude, "Our review revealed a large variation in applied methods as well as major deficiencies in the reporting of key features of the panel diagnosis process...The results of our review may serve as a starting point in the development of formal guidelines on methodology and reporting of panel diagnosis."
The study was conducted as part of the Dutch National Care for the Elderly Program (ZonMw-NPO, www.ZonMw.nl). Research grant from the ‘‘Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development’’ (ZonMw grant 311040302). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Authors: Loes C. M. Bertens*, Berna D. L. Broekhuizen, Christiana A. Naaktgeboren, Frans H. Rutten, Arno W. Hoes, Yvonne van Mourik, Karel G. M. Moons, Johannes B. Reitsma
(2013) PLoS Med 10(10): e1001531. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001531
Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. Click 'references' tab above for source.
Visit our Medical Devices / Diagnostics category page for the latest news on this subject.
Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:
Medicine, PLOS. "Expert panel diagnosis for diagnostic tests often poorly described, experts often not blinded to test under study." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 15 Oct. 2013. Web.
13 Dec. 2013. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/267407>
Medicine, P. (2013, October 15). "Expert panel diagnosis for diagnostic tests often poorly described, experts often not blinded to test under study." Medical News Today. Retrieved from
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
If you write about specific medications, operations, or procedures please do not name healthcare professionals by name.
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the our editorial team, please use our feedback form. Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.
This page was printed from: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/267407.php
Visit www.medicalnewstoday.com for medical news and health news headlines posted throughout the day, every day.
© 2004-2013 All rights reserved. MNT (logo) is the registered trade mark of MediLexicon International Limited.