Preference test yelp survey1/29/2024 ![]() ![]() This context includes, among other factors, pre-existing conditions, results of other tests, skill and knowledge of providers, availability of therapeutic resources, and so on. ![]() In particular, medical tests are used in-and are highly dependent on-a complex context. This Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews (referred to hereafter as the Medical Test Methods Guide), produced by researchers in AHRQ's EPC Program, is intended to be a practical guide for those who prepare and use systematic reviews of medical tests as such, it complements AHRQ's Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews 1 (hereafter referred to as the General Methods Guide).1 Not only has the Medical Test Methods Guide been motivated by the increasing need for comprehensive reviews of medical tests it has also been created in recognition of features of medical tests and the evaluation literature that present unique problems for systematic reviewers. ![]() How can EPC investigators respond to this challenge with reviews that are timely, accessible, and practical, and that provide insight into where there have been (or should be) advances in the field of systematic review of medical tests? The challenge for EPC investigators is to complete such reviews with limited time and resources-a daunting prospect, particularly in the face of the near-exponential growth in the number of published studies related to medical tests (A MEDLINE® search using the keyword “test.mp” demonstrates a doubling of the number of citations approximately every 10 years since 1960). Systematic reviews developed under the EPC Program (sometimes labeled "evidence reports" or "technology assessments") are expected to be technically excellent and practically useful. With the growing number, complexity, and cost of medical tests, which tests can reliably be expected to improve health outcomes, and under what circumstances? As reflected in the increasing number of requests for systematic reviews of medical tests under the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program, patients, clinicians, and policymakers have a profound need for guidance on this question. As a contribution to the field, this Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews seeks to provide practical guidance to achieving the goal of clarity, consistency, tractability, and usefulness. However, there is a diversity of recommendations for reviewers of medical tests and a proliferation of concepts, terms, and methods. Available guidance provides some suggestions: (1) Use the PICOTS typology ( Patient population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Timing, Setting) for clarifying the context relevant to the review, and (2) Use an organizing framework for classifying the types of medical test evaluation studies and their relationship to potential key questions. AbstractĮvaluation of medical tests presents challenges distinct from those involved in the evaluation of therapies in particular, the very great importance of context and the dearth of comprehensive randomized controlled trials aimed at comparing the clinical outcomes of different tests and test strategies. This is a chapter from AHRQ's Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |