Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

A guide for diagnostic evaluations

Nature Reviews Microbiology volume 4, pages S2–S6 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

Accurate diagnostic tests have a key role in patient management and the control of most infectious diseases. Unfortunately, in many developing countries, clinical care is often critically compromised by the lack of regulatory controls on the quality of these tests. The information available on the performance of a diagnostic test can be biased or flawed because of failings in the design of the studies which assessed the performance characteristics of the test. As a result, diagnostic tests are sold and used in much of the developing world without evidence of effectiveness. Misdiagnosis leading to failure to treat a serious infection or wasting expensive treatment on people who are not infected remains a serious obstacle to health.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Childhood deaths from infectious diseases.
Figure 2: The bench-to-bedside pathway of diagnostics development and evaluation.
Figure 3: Regulation of diagnostics
Figure 4: Proportion of diagnostic evaluations meeting accepted standards.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kent, M. M. & Yin, S. Controlling Infectious Diseases (Population Reference Bureau, Washington DC, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  2. WHO. World Health Report [online], (2005).

  3. WHO/UNAIDS. AIDS Epidemic Update [online], (2005).

  4. WHO. Guidelines for the Management of Sexually Transmitted Infections [online], (2001).

  5. WHO. Integrated Management of Childhood Illness Information Pack [online], (1998).

  6. Mabey, D., Peeling, R.W., Ustianowski, A. & Perkins, M. Diagnostics for the developing world. Nature Rev. Microbiol. 2, 231– 240 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cunningham, J. et al. in Diagnostics for Tuberculosis: Global Demand and Market Potential 116– 120 (WHO, in the press).

  8. Ransohoff, D.F. & Feinstein, A. R. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. New Engl. J. Med. 299, 926– 930 (1978).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lach, M. S. et al. Spectrum bias in the evaluation of diagnostic tests: lessons learnt from the rapid dipstick test for urinary tract infections. Ann. Intern. Med. 117, 135– 140 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Reid, M. C., Lachs, M.S. & Feinstein, A. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good. J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 274, 645– 651 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Small, P. M. & Perkins, M. D. More rigour needed in trials of new diagnostic agents for tuberculosis. Lancet 356, 1048– 1049 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Pai, M. & O'Brien, R. Tuberculosis diagnostic trials: do they lack methodological rigour? Expert Rev. Mol. Diag. 6, 1– 6 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kettler, H., White, K. & Hawkes, S. Mapping the Landscape of Diagnostics for Sexually Transmitted Infections [online], (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bachmann, L. M., Puhan, M. A., ter Riet, G. & Bossuyt, P. M. Sample size of studies on diagnostic accuracy: literature survey. Br. Med. J. 332, 1127– 1129 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Smidt, N. et al. Quality of reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology 235, 347– 353 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Irwig, L. et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann. Intern. Med. 120, 667– 676 (1994).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Delaney, B. C. et al. Systematic review of near-patient test evaluations in primary care. Br. Med. J 319, 824– 827 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bossuyt, P. M. et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD Initiative. Clin. Chem. 49, 1– 6 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bossuyt, P. M. et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin. Chem. 49, 7– 18 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Delaney, B. C., Wilson, S., Fitzmaurice, D., Hyde, C. & Hobbs, R. Near-patient tests in primary care:setting the standards for evaluation. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 5, 37– 41 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith, P.G. & Morrow, R. H., eds Field Trials of Health Interventions in Developing Countries: A Toolbox. (Macmillan, London, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mathers, C. D., Lopez, A. D. & Murray, C. L. in Global Burden of Disease and Risk Factors (Lopez, A. D. et al., eds) 45– 93 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UNICEF/UNDP/ World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research & Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR), World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, Geneva, CH-1211 27, Switzerland

    Rosanna W Peeling

  2. Infectious Diseases Epidemiology Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK

    Peter G Smith

  3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22700, Amsterdam, 1100 DE, The Netherlands

    Patrick M. M Bossuyt

Authors
  1. Rosanna W Peeling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter G Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrick M. M Bossuyt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosanna W Peeling.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peeling, R., Smith, P. & Bossuyt, P. A guide for diagnostic evaluations. Nat Rev Microbiol 4 (Suppl 12), S2–S6 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1568

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1568

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing