When should a new test become the current reference standard?

Paul Glasziou, Les Irwig, Jonathan J. Deeks

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

66 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The evaluation of claims that a new diagnostic test is better than the current gold standard test is hindered by the lack of a perfect reference judge. However, this problem may be sidestepped by focusing on the clinical consequences of the decision rather than on estimation of accuracy. Consequences can be assessed by use of a "fair umpire" test that is not perfect yet can discriminate between disease and nondisease cases and is not biased in favor of 1 test. This article discusses 3 principles to aid judgments about the value of new tests. First, the consequences are best examined in cases with disagreement between the current and new tests. Second, resolving these disagreements requires a fair, but not necessarily perfect, umpire test. Finally, umpire tests include consequences, such as prognosis and response to treatment, as well as causal exposures and other test results.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)816-821
Number of pages7
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume149
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2 Dec 2008
Externally publishedYes

Cite this

Glasziou, Paul ; Irwig, Les ; Deeks, Jonathan J. / When should a new test become the current reference standard?. In: Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008 ; Vol. 149, No. 11. pp. 816-821.
@article{31a87c300313455b98d5c400938e879f,
title = "When should a new test become the current reference standard?",
abstract = "The evaluation of claims that a new diagnostic test is better than the current gold standard test is hindered by the lack of a perfect reference judge. However, this problem may be sidestepped by focusing on the clinical consequences of the decision rather than on estimation of accuracy. Consequences can be assessed by use of a {"}fair umpire{"} test that is not perfect yet can discriminate between disease and nondisease cases and is not biased in favor of 1 test. This article discusses 3 principles to aid judgments about the value of new tests. First, the consequences are best examined in cases with disagreement between the current and new tests. Second, resolving these disagreements requires a fair, but not necessarily perfect, umpire test. Finally, umpire tests include consequences, such as prognosis and response to treatment, as well as causal exposures and other test results.",
author = "Paul Glasziou and Les Irwig and Deeks, {Jonathan J.}",
year = "2008",
month = "12",
day = "2",
doi = "10.7326/0003-4819-149-11-200812020-00009",
language = "English",
volume = "149",
pages = "816--821",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "AMER COLL PHYSICIANS",
number = "11",

}

When should a new test become the current reference standard? / Glasziou, Paul; Irwig, Les; Deeks, Jonathan J.

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 149, No. 11, 02.12.2008, p. 816-821.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - When should a new test become the current reference standard?

AU - Glasziou, Paul

AU - Irwig, Les

AU - Deeks, Jonathan J.

PY - 2008/12/2

Y1 - 2008/12/2

N2 - The evaluation of claims that a new diagnostic test is better than the current gold standard test is hindered by the lack of a perfect reference judge. However, this problem may be sidestepped by focusing on the clinical consequences of the decision rather than on estimation of accuracy. Consequences can be assessed by use of a "fair umpire" test that is not perfect yet can discriminate between disease and nondisease cases and is not biased in favor of 1 test. This article discusses 3 principles to aid judgments about the value of new tests. First, the consequences are best examined in cases with disagreement between the current and new tests. Second, resolving these disagreements requires a fair, but not necessarily perfect, umpire test. Finally, umpire tests include consequences, such as prognosis and response to treatment, as well as causal exposures and other test results.

AB - The evaluation of claims that a new diagnostic test is better than the current gold standard test is hindered by the lack of a perfect reference judge. However, this problem may be sidestepped by focusing on the clinical consequences of the decision rather than on estimation of accuracy. Consequences can be assessed by use of a "fair umpire" test that is not perfect yet can discriminate between disease and nondisease cases and is not biased in favor of 1 test. This article discusses 3 principles to aid judgments about the value of new tests. First, the consequences are best examined in cases with disagreement between the current and new tests. Second, resolving these disagreements requires a fair, but not necessarily perfect, umpire test. Finally, umpire tests include consequences, such as prognosis and response to treatment, as well as causal exposures and other test results.

U2 - 10.7326/0003-4819-149-11-200812020-00009

DO - 10.7326/0003-4819-149-11-200812020-00009

M3 - Article

VL - 149

SP - 816

EP - 821

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 11

ER -