Use of Expert Panels to Define the Reference Standard in Diagnostic Research: A Systematic Review of Published Methods and Reporting

被引:92
作者
Bertens, Loes C. M. [1 ]
Broekhuizen, Berna D. L. [1 ]
Naaktgeboren, Christiana A. [1 ]
Rutten, Frans H. [1 ]
Hoes, Arno W. [1 ]
van Mourik, Yvonne [1 ]
Moons, Karel G. M. [1 ]
Reitsma, Johannes B. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Med Ctr Utrecht, Julius Ctr Hlth Sci & Primary Care, Utrecht, Netherlands
关键词
MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY-DISEASE; MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT; LATENT CLASS ANALYSIS; HEART-FAILURE; CT ANGIOGRAPHY; EMERGENCY-DEPARTMENT; CORONARY-ANGIOGRAPHY; NATRIURETIC PEPTIDE; MAGNETIC-RESONANCE;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pmed.1001531
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: In diagnostic studies, a single and error-free test that can be used as the reference (gold) standard often does not exist. One solution is the use of panel diagnosis, i.e., a group of experts who assess the results from multiple tests to reach a final diagnosis in each patient. Although panel diagnosis, also known as consensus or expert diagnosis, is frequently used as the reference standard, guidance on preferred methodology is lacking. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of methods used in panel diagnoses and to provide initial guidance on the use and reporting of panel diagnosis as reference standard. Methods and Findings: PubMed was systematically searched for diagnostic studies applying a panel diagnosis as reference standard published up to May 31, 2012. We included diagnostic studies in which the final diagnosis was made by two or more persons based on results from multiple tests. General study characteristics and details of panel methodology were extracted. Eighty-one studies were included, of which most reported on psychiatry (37%) and cardiovascular (21%) diseases. Data extraction was hampered by incomplete reporting; one or more pieces of critical information about panel reference standard methodology was missing in 83% of studies. In most studies (75%), the panel consisted of three or fewer members. Panel members were blinded to the results of the index test results in 31% of studies. Reproducibility of the decision process was assessed in 17 (21%) studies. Reported details on panel constitution, information for diagnosis and methods of decision making varied considerably between studies. Conclusions: Methods of panel diagnosis varied substantially across studies and many aspects of the procedure were either unclear or not reported. On the basis of our review, we identified areas for improvement and developed a checklist and flow chart for initial guidance for researchers conducting and reporting of studies involving panel diagnosis.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 99 条
  • [1] Alonzo TA, 1999, STAT MED, V18, P2987, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19991130)18:22<2987::AID-SIM205>3.0.CO
  • [2] 2-B
  • [3] Influence of renal dysfunction on the accuracy of procalcitonin for the diagnosis of postoperative infection after vascular surgery
    Amour, Julien
    Birenbaum, Aurelie
    Langeron, Olivier
    Le Manach, Yannick
    Bertrand, Michele
    Coriat, Pierre
    Riou, Bruno
    Bernard, Maguy
    Hausfater, Pierre
    [J]. CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2008, 36 (04) : 1147 - 1154
  • [4] Role of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance as a Gatekeeper to Invasive Coronary Angiography in Patients Presenting With Heart Failure of Unknown Etiology
    Assomull, Ravi G.
    Shakespeare, Carl
    Kalra, Paul R.
    Lloyd, Guy
    Gulati, Ankur
    Strange, Julian
    Bradlow, William M.
    Lyne, Jonathan
    Keegan, Jennifer
    Poole-Wilson, Philip
    Cowie, Martin R.
    Pennell, Dudley J.
    Prasad, Sanjay K.
    [J]. CIRCULATION, 2011, 124 (12) : 1351 - 1360
  • [5] Prevalence of disorders of the autism spectrum in a population cohort of children in South Thames: the Special Needs and Autism Project (SNAP)
    Baird, Gillian
    Simonoff, Emily
    Pickles, Andrew
    Chandler, Susie
    Loucas, Tom
    Meldrum, David
    Charman, Tony
    [J]. LANCET, 2006, 368 (9531) : 210 - 215
  • [6] Consensus Interpretation in Imaging Research: Is There a Better Way?
    Bankier, Alexander A.
    Levine, Deborah
    Halpern, Elkan F.
    Kressel, Herbert Y.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2010, 257 (01) : 14 - 17
  • [7] Utility of composite reference standards and latent class analysis in evaluating the clinical accuracy of diagnostic tests for pertussis
    Baughman, Andrew L.
    Bisgard, Kristine M.
    Cortese, Margaret M.
    Thompson, William W.
    Sanden, Gary N.
    Strebel, Peter M.
    [J]. CLINICAL AND VACCINE IMMUNOLOGY, 2008, 15 (01) : 106 - 114
  • [8] The relationship of obsessive-compulsive disorder to possible spectrum disorders: Results from a family study
    Bienvenu, OJ
    Samuels, JF
    Riddle, MA
    Hoehn-Saric, R
    Liang, KY
    Cullen, BAM
    Grados, MA
    Nestadt, G
    [J]. BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY, 2000, 48 (04) : 287 - 293
  • [9] Diagnostic accuracy of a structured interview for nocturnal frontal lobe epilepsy (SINFLE): A proposal for developing diagnostic criteria
    Bisulli, Francesca
    Vignatelli, Luca
    Naldi, Ilaria
    Pittau, Francesca
    Provini, Federica
    Plazzi, Giuseppe
    Stipa, Carlotta
    Leta, Chiara
    Montagna, Pasquale
    Tinuper, Paolo
    [J]. SLEEP MEDICINE, 2012, 13 (01) : 81 - 87
  • [10] Ruling out coronary artery disease in primary care: development and validation of a simple prediction rule
    Boesner, Stefan
    Haasenritter, Joerg
    Becker, Annette
    Karatolios, Konstantinos
    Vaucher, Paul
    Gencer, Baris
    Herzig, Lilli
    Heinzel-Gutenbrunner, Monika
    Schaefer, Juergen R.
    Abu Hani, Maren
    Keller, Heidi
    Soennichsen, Andreas C.
    Baum, Erika
    Donner-Banzhoff, Norbert
    [J]. CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2010, 182 (12) : 1295 - 1300