Www.cebm.net Evidence Based Health Care Course Paris, 2010 Appraising diagnostic studies Dr Matthew Thompson Senior Clinical Scientist.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
UGA Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
Advertisements

Progress Against Testicular Cancer. 1970–1979 Progress Against Testicular Cancer 1970– : Two new drugs produce first complete remissions in advanced.
Can Information Technology Transform Health Care? The RAND Study of Potential Costs and Benefits of Electronic Medical Record Systems Roger S. Taylor MD,
NORTHERN IRELAND HEALTH & PERSONAL SOCIAL SERVICES Risk Management Induction & Awareness: What You Need to Know Special Thanks to Capita Consulting and.
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Implementing NICE guidance 2008 NICE clinical guideline 72.
Tuberculosis (TB): clinical diagnosis and management of tuberculosis and measures for its prevention and control March 2006.
Aim of programme to apply the principles of risk management to practical situations and relate these to personal experiences to improve the quality of.
PRIMIS Third National Conference Tuesday 1 April 2003 Birmingham HIP for CHD Jane Matthews Practice Nurse Dr. Dai Evans PRIMIS Regional Clinical Adviser.
SEARCHING EVIDENCE THROUGH THE COCHRANE LIBRARY
Nurse Led Clinics Opportunity for nurses to make a difference Wilma Scholte op Reimer, RN, PhD Amsterdam School of Health Professions Academic Medical.
Chris Bonnett, MHSc, PhD (Cand.) H3 Consulting, Guelph Managing Chronic Disease Can it work at work?
Introduction to Evidence Based Medicine Dr. Yaser Adi MD, MPH, MSc HTA Senior Researcher Sheikh Abdullah S BaHamdan’s Research Chair for EBHC-KT College.
Mental Health: assessment and rehabilitation Dr Doreen Miller FRCP FFOM Managing Partner Miller Health Management.
Evidence-Based Medicine Thread Course Dr Carl Heneghan Director CEBM Clinical Reader, University of Oxford.
Appraising Diagnostic Studies CEBM Course April 2013 Matthew Thompson Reader, Dept Primary Care Health Sciences Director, Oxford Centre for.
1-day workshop on Evidence-Based Practice November 26 th 2010 Dr Carl Heneghan Clinical Reader, University of Oxford Director CEBM.
3-Day workshop on Evidence-Based Practice March 26 th 2012 Dr Carl Heneghan Director CEBM Clinical Reader, University of Oxford.
Prof. Carl Heneghan Director CEBM University of Oxford
Evidence-Based Practice April 8 th 2013 Dr Carl Heneghan Clinical Reader, University of Oxford Director CEBM.
1 Todd R. Bartos, Esquire Healthcare Litigation Group Rewarding excellence and protecting your Bariatric Surgery Practice New Informed Consent for Bariatric.
Click the arrows to advance forward and backward. Click the Next link below to advance to the assessment. The A B C & D’s of Suicide Assessment and Clinical.
A Unified Clinical Genomics Database
Living well with dementia: more timely diagnosis and early intervention Louise Robinson Professor of Primary Care and Ageing RCGP National Clinical Champion.
Critically Evaluating the Evidence: diagnosis, prognosis, and screening Elizabeth Crabtree, MPH, PhD (c) Director of Evidence-Based Practice, Quality Management.
{ ADVERSE DRUG REACTIONS To ensure patient, family/caregiver and home health personnel are instructed to identify adverse reactions to medications and.
EPIDEMIOLOGY V M 2009/10 Shane Allwright Dept. of Public Health & Primary Care.
International Forum - Quality & Safety in Healthcare |1 | An overview of the Guidance points Ethical issues in Patient Safety Research An overview.
Quality Cancer Data The Vital Role of Cancer Registrars in the Fight against Cancer Saves Lives.
Copyright © 2011 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Chapter 4 EBM: A Historical Perspective.
ADHD& CO-morbidities Dr. Fatima Al-Haidar Professor & Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist.
Clearing the air – National study of COPD Health Care Commission 2006.
1 SCREENING. 2 Why screen? Who wants to screen? n Doctors n Labs n Hospitals n Drug companies n Public n Who doesn’t ?
1 Lotronex Postmarketing Experience Ann Corken Mackey, R.Ph., M.P.H. Allen Brinker, M.D., M.S. Zili Li, M.D., M.P.H., formerly of ODS Office of Drug Safety.
METHODS TO STUDY DRUG SAFETY PROBLEMS animal experiments clinical trials epidemiological methods –spontaneous reporting case reports case series –Post-Marketing.
Looking at Frailty Through a New Lens John Strandmark, M.D. ©AAHCM.
Learning Objectives Identify the model to create a well-built Clinical Question Differentiate between the various Evidence- Based Care Types of Questions.
Prognosis study EBM questions. Prognostic factors Characteristics of patient that may predict eventual outcome Several types: demographic (eg age) disease-specific.
The Bone & Joint Decade - India An IRACON 2003 Indian Rheumatology: New Horizons, New Hopes Artichoke of Population Studies & Clinical Practice Dr Rajesh.
Insurance Medicine and the Medical Profession A discussion of competing factors and opportunities Dr Antony Vriens Chief Medical Director Manulife Financial.
Dementia: Alzheimer’s Disease Cyril Evbuomwan Patient Group Meeting 1 st December 2015.
European Patients’ Academy on Therapeutic Innovation Introduction to pharmacovigilance Monitoring the safety of medicines.
Overcoming the Challenges & Promoting Positive Benefits Julie Davies.
EBM --- Journal Reading Presenter :黃美琴 Date : 2005/10/27.
Risk Management in the National Health Service in England Stuart Emslie Head of Controls Assurance Department of Health, England ISO General Assembly 2001,
Prostatectomy operations in England South West Public Health Observatory Trends in the use of radical prostatectomy in England Sean McPhail.
© 2010 Jones and Bartlett Publishers, LLC. Chapter 12 Clinical Epidemiology.
[NAME CCG] [DATE] [FACILITATOR] Early Diagnosis of Cancer Quality Improvement using Cancer Significant Event Analysis [CCG MAP]
Advance Care Planning in dementia Dr Karen Harrison Dening Head of Research & Evaluation Dementia UK GSF 2016.
Clinical Epidemiology
Bringing Genomics Home Your DNA: A Blueprint for Better Health
An introduction to personalised medicine & health in Leeds
1st International Online BioMedical Conference (IOBMC 2015)
Indian Rheumatology: New Horizons, New Hopes
Nut and Bolts of Critical Appraisal of Medical Literature
Fundamentals of Evidence based Medicine: Class structure
Research and Evidence Based Medicine
NSG 6440 Enthusiastic Studysnaptutorial.com
Cardiogenic Shock.
Dissemination of CPRs: focus on Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) Dr Emma Wallace.
Primary Biliary Cholangitis
Breaking News in Pemphigus Vulgaris and the Latest Updates for Your Practice.
Hypovolemic Shock.
Perspective on the Multidisciplinary Management of PAH
Relative risks of clinical events for primary and secondary prevention with selected drugs Thomas A Gaziano, et al. Lancet 2006; 368:
EBM Dr Adrian Burger 20 March 2007.
PICO model for developing EBM questions
Component 1: Introduction to Health Care and Public Health in the U.S.
A study of two UK hospitals found that 11% of admitted patients experienced adverse events of which 48% of these events were most likely preventable.
Living Well With and Beyond Cancer University Hospitals Bristol
P-Care Personal health CARE for monitoring Cardiovascular Disease
Presentation transcript:

Evidence Based Health Care Course Paris, 2010 Appraising diagnostic studies Dr Matthew Thompson Senior Clinical Scientist

What is diagnosis? Increase certainty about presence/absence of disease Disease severity Monitor clinical course Assess prognosis – risk/stage Plan treatment e.g., location Stall for time!

2/3 malpractice claims against GPs in UK 40,000-80,000 US hospital deaths from misdiagnosis per year Adverse events, negligence cases, serious disability more likely to be related to misdiagnosis than drug errors Diagnosis uses <5% of hospital costs, but influences 60% of decision making

Series of patients Index test Reference (gold) standard Compare the results of the index test with the reference standard, blinded Basic structure of diagnostic studies

Appraising diagnostic tests: 3 easy steps 1. Are the results valid? 2. What are the results? 3. Will they help me look after my patients? Appropriate spectrum of patients? Does everyone get the gold standard? Is there an independent, blind or objective comparison with the gold standard? Sensitivity, specificity Likelihood ratios Predictive values Can I do the test in my setting? Do results apply to the mix of patients I see? Will the result change my management? Costs to patient/health service?

Appropriate spectrum of patients? Ideally, test should be performed on group of patients in whom it will be applied in the real world clinical setting Spectrum bias = study uses only highly selected patients…….perhaps those in whom you would really suspect have the diagnosis

All patients have the gold standard? Ideally all patients get the gold /reference standard test Work-up bias = only some patients get the gold standard…..perhaps the ones in whom you really suspect have the disease

Ideally, the gold standard is independent, blind and objective Observer bias = test is very subjective, or done by person who knows something about the patient Independent, blind or objective comparison with the gold standard?

2 by 2 table Disease Test True positives False negatives True negatives False positives

2 by 2 table: sensitivity Disease Test Sensitivity = a / a + c Proportion of people with the disease who have a positive test result. a True positives c False negatives

2 by 2 table: specificity Disease Test b False positives d True negatives Specificity = d / b + d Proportion of people without the disease who have a negative test result.

2 x 2 table: positive predictive value Disease Test c ab d PPV = a / a + b Proportion of people with a positive test who have the disease

2 x 2 table: negative predictive value Disease Test c ab d NPV = d / c + d Proportion of people with a negative test who do not have the disease

Likelihood ratios Positive likelihood ratio (LR+) How much more likely is a positive test to be found in a person with the disease than in a person without it? LR+ = sens/(1-spec) Negative likelihood ratio (LR-) How much more likely is a negative test to be found in a person without the condition than in a person with it? LR- = (1-sens)/(spec)

2 x 2 table: positive likelihood ratio Disease Test c ab d LR+ = a/a+c / b/b+d or LR+ = sens/(1-spec) How much more often a positive test occurs in people with compared to those without the disease

2 x 2 table: negative likelihood ratio Disease Test c ab d LR - = c/a+c / d/b+d or LR - = (1-sens)/(spec) How less likely a negative test result is in people with the disease compared to those without the disease

What do likelihood ratios mean? LR>10 = strong positive test result LR<0.1 = strong negative test result LR=1 No diagnostic value

Will the test apply in my setting? Reproducibility of the test and interpretation in my setting Do results apply to the mix of patients I see? Will the results change my management? Impact on outcomes that are important to patients? Where does the test fit into the diagnostic strategy? Costs to patient/health service?

Refinement of the diagnostic causes Restricted Rule Outs Stepwise refinement Probabilistic reasoning Pattern recognition fit Clinical Prediction Rule Spot diagnoses Self-labelling Presenting complaint Pattern recognition Initiation of the diagnosis Defining the final diagnosis Known Diagnosis Further tests ordered Test of treatment Test of time No label How do clinicians make diagnoses? Diagnostic stages & strategies (Heneghan et al, BMJ 2009) Stage Strategies used

Evaluating the roles of new tests Replacement – new replaces old E.g., CT colonography for barium enema Triage – new determines need for old E.g., B-natriuretic peptide for echocardiography Add-on – new combined with old ECG and myocardial perfusion scan Bossuyt et al BMJ 2006;332:1089–92

Stepwise evaluation of new diagnostic tests. Van den Bruel A, J Clin Epidemiol Bossuyt P, BMJ 2006

Whats next? In your small groups, pick a diagnostic article Rapidly appraise it using the 3 steps Explain sensitivity/specificity etc THANK YOU!