Clinical validity: Defining biomarker performance

被引:27
作者
Bossuyt, Patrick M. M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, NL-1012 WX Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
DIAGNOSTIC-TEST; TEST ACCURACY; EVIDENCE BASE; SENSITIVITY; SPECIFICITY; TESTS; RATIO;
D O I
10.3109/00365513.2010.493383
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
A central phase in the evaluation of a biomarker is the assessment of its clinical validity. In most cases, clinical validity will be expressed in terms of the marker's diagnostic accuracy: the degree to which it can be used to identify diseased patients or, more generally, patients with the target condition. Diagnostic accuracy is evaluated in diagnostic accuracy studies, in which the biomarker values are compared to the outcome of the clinical reference standard in the same patients. There are several ways in which the results of diagnostic accuracy studies can be summarized, reported, and interpreted. We present an overview and a critical commentary of the available measures. We classify them as error-based measures, information-based measures, and measures of the strength of the association. The diagnostic accuracy is not a fixed property of a marker. All accuracy measures may vary between studies, not just through chance, but also with changes in the definition of the target condition, the spectrum of disease, the setting, and the amount of prior testing. We discuss the relativity of the claim that likelihood ratios are a superior way of expressing the accuracy of biomarkers, and defend the use of the sometimes downgraded statistics sensitivity and specificity.
引用
收藏
页码:46 / 52
页数:7
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2003, The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction
[2]   Sample sizes of studies on diagnostic accuracy: literature survey [J].
Bachmann, LM ;
Puhan, MA ;
ter Riet, G ;
Bossuyt, PM .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2006, 332 (7550) :1127-1129
[3]   Interpreting diagnostic test accuracy studies [J].
Bossuyt, Patrick M. M. .
SEMINARS IN HEMATOLOGY, 2008, 45 (03) :189-195
[4]   Diagnosis - Comparative accuracy: assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways [J].
Bossuyt, PM ;
Irwig, L ;
Craig, J ;
Glasziou, P .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2006, 332 (7549) :1089-1092
[5]   Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative [J].
Bossuyt, PM ;
Reitsma, JB ;
Bruns, DE ;
Gatsonis, CA ;
Glasziou, PP ;
Irwig, LM ;
Lijmer, JG ;
Moher, D ;
Rennie, D ;
de Vet, HCW .
CLINICAL CHEMISTRY, 2003, 49 (01) :1-6
[6]   Randomised comparisons of medical tests: sometimes invalid, not always efficient [J].
Bossuyt, PMM ;
Lijmer, JG ;
Mol, BWJ .
LANCET, 2000, 356 (9244) :1844-1847
[7]   Evaluation of a clinical test. II: Assessment of validity [J].
Chien, PFW ;
Khan, KS .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2001, 108 (06) :568-572
[8]   REVEREND BAYES SILENT MAJORITY - AN ALTERNATIVE FACTOR AFFECTING SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY OF EXERCISE ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY [J].
DIAMOND, GA .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 1986, 57 (13) :1175-1180
[9]   Misguided efforts and future challenges for research on "diagnostic tests" [J].
Feinstein, AR .
JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 2002, 56 (05) :330-332
[10]   A readers' guide to the interpretation of diagnostic test properties: clinical example of sepsis [J].
Fischer, JE ;
Bachmann, LM ;
Jaeschke, R .
INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE, 2003, 29 (07) :1043-1051