Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/79817
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: The "linked evidence approach" to assess medical tests: a critical analysis
Author: Merlin, T.
Lehman, S.
Ryan, P.
Hiller, J.
Citation: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2013; 29(3):343-350
Publisher: Cambridge Univ Press
Issue Date: 2013
ISSN: 0266-4623
1471-6348
Statement of
Responsibility: 
Tracy Merlin, Samuel Lehman, Philip Ryan, Janet E. Hiller
Abstract: Objectives: A linked evidence approach (LEA) is the synthesis of systematically acquired evidence on the accuracy of a medical test, its impact on clinical decision making and the effectiveness of consequent treatment options. We aimed to assess the practical utility of this methodology and to develop a decision framework to guide its use. Methods: As Australia has lengthy experience with LEA, we reviewed health technology assessment (HTA) reports informing reimbursement decisions by the Medical Services Advisory Committee (August 2005 to March 2012). Eligibility was determined according to predetermined criteria and data were extracted on test characteristics, evaluation methodologies, and reported difficulties. Fifty percent of the evidence-base was independently analyzed by a second reviewer. Results: Evaluations of medical tests for diagnostic (62 percent), staging (27 percent), and screening (6 percent) purposes were available for eighty-nine different clinical indications. Ninety-six percent of the evaluations used either the full LEA methodology or an abridged version (where evidence is linked through to management changes but not patient outcomes). Sixty-one percent had the full evidence linkage. Twenty-five percent of test evaluations were considered problematic; all involving LEA (n = 22). Problems included: determining test accuracy with an imperfect reference standard (41 percent); assessing likely treatment effectiveness in test positive patients when the new test is more accurate than the comparator (18 percent); and determining probable health benefits in those symptomatic patients ruled out using the test (13 percent). A decision framework was formulated to address these problems. Conclusions: LEA is useful for evaluating medical tests but a stepped approach should be followed to determine what evidence is required for the synthesis.
Keywords: Diagnostic test approval; Evaluation methodology; Systematic review; Reimbursement mechanisms
Rights: Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 The online version of this article is published within an Open Access environment subject to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/>. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use.
RMID: 0020130964
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462313000287
Appears in Collections:Public Health publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
hdl_79817.pdfPublished version229.09 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.