Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2012 Jun;27 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S94-101.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1899-y.

Chapter 12: systematic review of prognostic tests

Thomas S Rector  1 , Brent C Taylor, Timothy J Wilt
Affiliations
Review

Chapter 12: systematic review of prognostic tests

Thomas S Rector et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Jun.

Abstract

A number of new biological markers are being studied as predictors of disease or adverse medical events among those who already have a disease. Systematic reviews of this growing literature can help determine whether the available evidence supports use of a new biomarker as a prognostic test that can more accurately place patients into different prognostic groups to improve treatment decisions and the accuracy of outcome predictions. Exemplary reviews of prognostic tests are not widely available, and the methods used to review diagnostic tests do not necessarily address the most important questions about prognostic tests that are used to predict the time-dependent likelihood of future patient outcomes. We provide suggestions for those interested in conducting systematic reviews of a prognostic test. The proposed use of the prognostic test should serve as the framework for a systematic review and to help define the key questions. The outcome probabilities or level of risk and other characteristics of prognostic groups are the most salient statistics for review and perhaps meta-analysis. Reclassification tables can help determine how a prognostic test affects the classification of patients into different prognostic groups, hence their treatment. Review of studies of the association between a potential prognostic test and patient outcomes would have little impact other than to determine whether further development as a prognostic test might be warranted.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

  • Systematic Review of Prognostic Tests.
    Rector TS, Taylor BC, Wilt TJ. Rector TS, et al. In: Chang SM, Matchar DB, Smetana GW, Umscheid CA, editors. Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012 Jun. Chapter 12. In: Chang SM, Matchar DB, Smetana GW, Umscheid CA, editors. Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012 Jun. Chapter 12. PMID: 22834030 Free Books & Documents. Review.
  • The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
    Soll RF, Ovelman C, McGuire W. Soll RF, et al. Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
  • Chapter 6: assessing applicability of medical test studies in systematic reviews.
    Hartmann KE, Matchar DB, Chang S. Hartmann KE, et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Jun;27 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S39-46. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1961-9. J Gen Intern Med. 2012. PMID: 22648674 Free PMC article.
  • Chapter 1: Introduction to the Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews.
    Matchar DB. Matchar DB. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Jun;27 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S4-10. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1798-2. J Gen Intern Med. 2012. PMID: 22648669 Free PMC article.
  • Challenges in systematic reviews of diagnostic technologies.
    Tatsioni A, Zarin DA, Aronson N, Samson DJ, Flamm CR, Schmid C, Lau J. Tatsioni A, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2005 Jun 21;142(12 Pt 2):1048-55. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-142-12_part_2-200506211-00004. Ann Intern Med. 2005. PMID: 15968029 Review.
See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Janes H, Pepe MS, Bossuyt PM, Barlow WE. Measuring the performance of markers for guiding treatment decisions. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:253–259. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hlatky MA, Greenland P, Arnett DK, et al. Criteria for evaluation of novel markers of cardiovascular risk: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2009;119(17):2408–2416. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.192278. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wang TJ. Assessing the role of circulating, genetic and imaging biomarkers in cardiovascular risk prediction. Circulation. 2011;123:551–565. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.912568. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ingui BJ, Rogers MA. Searching for clinical prediction rules in MEDLINE. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001;8(4):391–397. doi: 10.1136/jamia.2001.0080391. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hayden JA, Cote P, Bombardier C. Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematicreviews. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(6):427–437. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources