Abstract
Diagnostic tests make it possible to determine whether a person has a disease or not. Before incorporating a new diagnostic test in the clinical setting, it is necessary to define its validity through its indicators of performance, sensitivity, and specificity. In these studies, like in any research, the results might not be reliable when there are biases during their execution. This article entails the discussion about the biases in diagnostic test studies that may cause inaccuracy in sensitivity and specificity. The main biases that affect the validity of these studies are: incorporation bias, partial and/or differential verification bias, an imperfect reference standard, a limited spectrum of the disease, and the ambiguous results of the test to be validated. In addition, examples of how these biases impact on the results of sensitivity and specificity are given in this paper.
References
Chassé M, Fergusson DA. Diagnostic accuracy studies. Semin Nucl Med. 2019;49(2):87-93. DOI: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2018.11.005
Escrig-Sos J, Martínez-Ramos D, Manuel Miralles-Tena J. Pruebas diagnósticas: nociones básicas para su correcta interpretación y uso. Cir Esp. 2006;79(5):267-273. DOI: 10.1016/S0009-739X(06)70871-5
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BJM. 2003;326(7379):41-44. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41
Villasís-Keever MÁ, Miranda-Novales MG. El protocolo de investigación II: los diseños de estudio para investigación clínica. Rev Alerg Mex. 2016;63(1):80-90. DOI: 10.29262/ram.v63i1.163
Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(3):189-202. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-3-200402030-00010
Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, QUADAS-2 Steering Group. A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(10):1093-1104. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.014
Umemneku Chikere CM, Wilson K, Graziadio S, Vale L, Allen AJ. Diagnostic test evaluation methodology: a systematic review of methods employed to evaluate diagnostic tests in the absence of gold standard-an update. PLoS One. 2019;14(10):e0223832. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223832
Villasís-Keever MÁ, Márquez-González H, Zurita-Cruz JN, Miranda-Novales G, Escamilla-Núñez A. El protocolo de investigación VII. Validez y confiabilidad de las mediciones. Rev Alerg Mex. 2018;65(4):414-421. DOI: 10.29262/ram.v65i4.560
Díaz-García L, Medina-Vera I, García-de la Puente S, González-Garay A, Murata Ch. Estudios de exactitud diagnóstica. Acta Pediatr Mex. 2019;40(6):342-357. Disponible en: https://ojs.actapediatrica.org.mx/index.php/APM/article/download/1933/1164
Le-Gal G, Le-Roux PY. How to assess quality of primary research studies in the medical literature? Semin Nucl Med. 2019;49(2):115-120. DOI: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2018.11.007
Schmidt RL, Factor RE. Understanding sources of bias in diagnostic accuracy studies. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137(4):558-565. DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2012-0198-RA
Kohn MA, Carpenter CR, Newman TB. Understanding the direction of bias in studies of diagnostic test accuracy. Acad Emerg Med. 2013;20(11):1194-1206. DOI: 10.1111/acem.12255
Ramírez-Enríquez F, Prado-Rendón J, Lachica-Valle J, Valle-Leal JG. Inmunoglobulina E total como marcador de alergia en el noroeste de México. Rev Alerg Mex. 2016;63(1):20. DOI: 10.29262/ram.v63i1.135
Marraccini P, Pignatti P, D Apos-Alcamo A, Salimbeni R, Consonni D. Basophil activation test application in drug hypersensitivity diagnosis: an empirical approach. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2018;177(2):160-166. DOI: 10.1159/000490116
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2020 Revista Alergia México