No AccessJournal of UrologyUsers' Guide to the Urological Literature1 Aug 2008

How to Use an Article About a Diagnostic Test

    View All Author Information


    Urologists frequently confront diagnostic dilemmas, prompting them to select, perform and interpret additional diagnostic tests. Before applying a given diagnostic test the user should ascertain that the chosen test would indeed help decide whether the patient has a particular target condition. In this article in the Users' Guide to the Urological Literature series we illustrate the guiding principles of how to critically appraise a diagnostic test, interpret its results and apply its findings to the care of an individual patient.

    Materials and Methods:

    The guiding principles of how to evaluate a diagnostic test are introduced in the setting of a clinical scenario. We propose a stepwise approach that addresses the question of whether the study results are likely to be valid, what the results are and whether these results would help urologists with the treatment of their individual patients.


    Some of the issues urologists should consider when assessing the validity of a diagnostic test study are how the authors assembled the study population, whether they used blinding to minimize bias and whether they used an appropriate reference standard in all patients to determine the presence or absence of the target disorder. Urologists should next evaluate the properties of the diagnostic test that indicate the direction and magnitude of change in the probability of disease for a particular test result. Finally, urologists should ask a series of questions to understand how the diagnostic test may impact the care of their patients.


    Application of the guides presented in this article will allow urologists to critically appraise studies of diagnostic tests. Determining the study validity, understanding the study results and assessing the applicability to patient care are 3 fundamental steps toward an evidence-based approach to choosing and interpreting diagnostic tests.


    • 1 : User's guide to the urological literature: how to perform a literature search. J Urol2008; 179: 1264. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 2 : Detection of bladder cancer using a point-of-care proteomic assay. JAMA2005; 293: 810. Google Scholar
    • 3 : Users' Guide to the Medical Literature. Chicago: AMA Press2002. Google Scholar
    • 4 : Users' guides to the medical literature: III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA1994; 271: 703. Google Scholar
    • 5 : A framework for clinical evaluation of diagnostic technologies. CMAJ1986; 134: 587. Google Scholar
    • 6 : Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD Initiative. Ann Intern Med2003; 138: 40. Google Scholar
    • 7 : The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med2003; 138: W1. Google Scholar
    • 8 : Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA1999; 282: 1061. Google Scholar
    • 9 : The diagnostic accuracy of the exercise electrocardiogram: a meta-analysis of 22 years of research. Prog Cardiovasc Dis1989; 32: 173. Google Scholar
    • 10 : Stratification of patients according to prior cardiopulmonary disease and probability assessment based on the number of mismatched segmental equivalent perfusion defects: Approaches to strengthen the diagnostic value of ventilation/perfusion lung scans in acute pulmonary embolism. Chest1993; 104: 1461. Google Scholar
    • 11 : Carcinoembryonic antigen. Ann Intern Med1986; 104: 66. Google Scholar
    • 12 : The hazards of bedside Bayes. JAMA1981; 246: 2602. Google Scholar
    • 13 : Factors affecting sensitivity and specificity of exercise electrocardiography: Multivariable analysis. Am J Med1984; 77: 64. Google Scholar
    • 14 : Spectrum bias in the evaluation of diagnostic tests: lessons from the rapid dipstick test for urinary tract infection. Ann Intern Med1992; 117: 135. Google Scholar
    • 15 : Limitations of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, and Bayes' theorem in assessing diagnostic probabilities: a clinical example. Epidemiology1997; 8: 12. Google Scholar
    • 16 : The effect of spectrum bias on the utility of magnetic resonance imaging and evoked potentials in the diagnosis of suspected multiple sclerosis. Neurology1996; 47: 140. Google Scholar
    • 17 : The limited spectrum of patients studied in exercise test research: Analyzing the tip of the iceberg. JAMA1982; 248: 2467. Google Scholar
    • 18 : Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med1978; 299: 926. Google Scholar
    • 19 : Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Biometrics1983; 39: 207. Google Scholar
    • 20 : The importance of work-up (verification) bias correction in assessing the accuracy of SPECT thallium-201 testing for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. J Clin Epidemiol1996; 49: 735. Google Scholar
    • 21 : Sensitivity and specificity of a single diagnostic test in the presence of work-up bias. J Clin Epidemiol1992; 45: 581. Google Scholar
    • 22 : Off Bayes: effect of verification bias on posterior probabilities calculated using Bayes' theorem. Med Decis Making1992; 12: 22. Google Scholar
    • 23 : A model for assessing the sensitivity and specificity of tests subject to selection bias: Application to exercise radionuclide ventriculography for diagnosis of coronary artery disease. J Chronic Dis1986; 39: 343. Google Scholar
    • 24 : Assessment of diagnostic technologies: Methodology for unbiased estimation from samples of selectively verified patients. Invest Radiol1985; 20: 751. Google Scholar
    • 25 : Effect of verification bias on positive and negative predictive values. Stat Med1994; 13: 1737. Google Scholar
    • 26 : Methodologic problems of exercise testing for coronary artery disease: groups, analysis and bias. Am J Cardiol1980; 46: 807. Google Scholar
    • 27 : Users' guides to the medical literature: III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA1994; 271: 389. Google Scholar
    • 28 : Letter to the editor: a nomogram for applying likelihood ratios. N Engl J Med1975; 293: 257. Google Scholar