The application of special technologies in diagnostic anatomic pathology: is it consistent with the principles of evidence-based medicine?
Proponents of evidence-based medicine (EBM) have emphasized the need to consider the quality of different sources of medical information and have proposed various methods to integrate available "best evidence" into rules, guidelines and other diagnostic, therapeutic and prognostic models. The various factors that can affect the internal validity of studies in anatomic pathology, such as interobserver variability, use of retrospective rather than prospective data and others, are reviewed. The need for testing for the external validity of the results of anatomic pathology studies is introduced, using "test sets" of cases that have not been used to generate the classification or prognostic models. This methodology has been seldom used in anatomic pathology to validate the generalizability of various "entities," usefulness of diagnostic tests under different conditions and other information. Basic concepts of meta-analysis for research synthesis are introduced; these methods have been seldom used in anatomic pathology to integrate information from different studies using quantitative techniques rather than summary tables that merely list the results of various publications. The potential use of decision analysis and value of information analysis for the adoption of new tests is briefly discussed.
Marchevsky
Alberto M
AM
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California 90048, USA. marchevsky@cshs.org
D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D003661:Decision Support Techniques; D003955:Diagnostic Tests, Routine; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006801:Humans; D013677:Medical Laboratory Science; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D010338:Pathology, Clinical; D005791:Patient Care; D010380:Peer Review; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012308:Risk Management