Just keep in mind that whatever you call it, if the gold standard is
good, a diagnostic study is better than an RCT. Group comparability is
not an issue at all, since the same patients get both tests. It would
be nice if the name reflected that. Really, "diagnostic study" is a
class unto itself. It should not be encumbered with the stigma that
"observational", "cross-sectional", or other non-RCT terms bring to
mind. It is a controlled study with no group comparability issues. Of
course there are other issues, such as the accuracy of the gold
standard, blinding, etc.
David Doggett
Philadelphia, PA, USA
-----Original Message-----
From: Piersante Sestini [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 4:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Diagnostic test studies
What is the name (or a good name) for studies on diagnostic tests, the
ones
in which suspect patients are prospectively recruited and subjected to
both
the test under study and a gold standard?
I used to liken them to cohort studies, but on the "Users' guides to the
medical literature" (part 1A1) they are indicated as <Cross sectional
analytic studies> (whatever that means).
I do realize that although the patients are recruited prospectively,
these
studies are cross sectional in nature. So "Cross sectional study on
incident suspect cases" could be an option? Except when the gold
standard
actually requires a long follow up to rule out the disease, which
complicates the matters...
I need a simple and logic-looking name to tell to my students, who are
mostly epidemiophobic and don't like much complexity or uncertainty in
what
they learn.
thanks,
Piersante Sestini
|