This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hachamovitch, R. Articles by Di Carli, M. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hachamovitch, R. Articles by Di Carli, M. F. Related Collections Health policy and outcome research Cardiovascular imaging agents/Techniques Exercise testing CT and MRI Echocardiography Nuclear cardiology and PET Epidemiology

(Circulation. 2008;117:2793-2801.)
© 2008 American Heart Association, Inc.

Contemporary Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine

Methods and Limitations of Assessing New Noninvasive Tests

Part II: Outcomes-Based Validation and Reliability Assessment of Noninvasive Testing

Rory Hachamovitch, MD, MSc; Marcelo F. Di Carli, MD

From the Divisions of Nuclear Medicine/Positron Emission Tomography and Cardiovascular Imaging, Departments of Radiology and Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (M.F.D.).

Correspondence to Rory Hachamovitch, MD, MSc, 6380 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1109, Los Angeles, CA 90048. E-mail hach@msn.com

Key Words: epidemiology • imaging • prognosis • statistics • tests

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

	Introduction

 
Outcomes-based approaches are the preferred methodology for technology validation. As discussed in part I of this review, the difficulties of performing an unbiased diagnostic evaluation are increasingly appreciated.¹ An outcomes-based approach is advantageous in that it mimics the clinical application of testing. By risk stratifying patients, the results of this approach can be applied directly to clinical practice.² Nonetheless, outcomes-based technology validation is not without challenges and limitations. These issues include the need for multivariable modeling for observational data, end point selection, and limitations of estimating posttest risk. Finally, it is increasingly appreciated that the future "gold standard" for outcomes-based assessments will be demonstrating whether imaging can identify which therapeutic approach optimizes patient benefit rather than merely identifying risk.

	Outcomes-Based Validation

 
Study Design
Requirements of imaging studies include a relevant study population, comparison with an appropriate control group, and follow-up for outcomes. Designing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that address imaging questions is challenging. The RCT may utilize imaging results as inclusion criteria or the basis for therapeutic assignment. Randomization to strategies with versus without imaging is problematic. The use of imaging per se affects outcomes only if a therapy is triggered; hence, in these studies, therapy and imaging results must be linked.^3,4 Comparisons of imaging methods/modalities must mandate that test results are acted on rather than "available to the physician" (thus, an emphasis on efficacy rather than effectiveness). Because observational studies are far more common, they will be our focus. Although limited by inherent design flaws (eg, selection biases, potentially spurious observations, missing covariates), . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Hachamovitch, X. Kang, A. M. Amanullah, A. Abidov, S. W. Hayes, J. D. Friedman, I. Cohen, L. E.J. Thomson, G. Germano, and D. S. Berman Prognostic Implications of Myocardial Perfusion Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography in the Elderly Circulation, December 1, 2009; 120(22): 2197 - 2206. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Peteiro, A. Bouzas-Mosquera, F. J. Broullon, A. Garcia-Campos, P. Pazos, and A. Castro-Beiras Prognostic value of peak and post-exercise treadmill exercise echocardiography in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease Eur. Heart J., October 12, 2009; (2009) ehp427v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Hachamovitch Assessing the Prognostic Value of Cardiovascular Imaging: A Statistical Exercise or a Guide to Clinical Value and Application? Circulation, October 6, 2009; 120(14): 1342 - 1344. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. J. Gibbons and P. Chareonthaitawee Establishing the Prognostic Value of Rb-82 PET Myocardial Perfusion Imaging: A Step in the Right Direction J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img., July 1, 2009; 2(7): 855 - 857. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. P. Badano Contrast enhanced real-time three-dimensional echocardiography for quantification of myocardial perfusion: a step forward Eur J Echocardiogr, June 1, 2009; 10(4): 465 - 466. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Bouzas-Mosquera, J. Peteiro, N. Alvarez-Garcia, F. J. Broullon, V. X. Mosquera, L. Garcia-Bueno, L. Ferro, and A. Castro-Beiras Prediction of mortality and major cardiac events by exercise echocardiography in patients with normal exercise electrocardiographic testing. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 26, 2009; 53(21): 1981 - 1990. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Bouzas-Mosquera, J. Peteiro, and N. Alvarez-Garcia Letter by Bouzas-Mosquera et al Regarding Article, "Cardiac Magnetic Resonance With T2-Weighted Imaging Improves Detection of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Emergency Department" Circulation, May 5, 2009; 119(17): e523 - e523. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Bouzas-Mosquera, J. Peteiro, N. Alvarez-Garcia, F. J. Broullon, L. Garcia-Bueno, L. Ferro, R. Perez, B. Bouzas, R. Fabregas, and A. Castro-Beiras Prognostic value of exercise echocardiography in patients with left bundle branch block. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img., March 1, 2009; 2(3): 251 - 259. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Bouzas-Mosquera, J. Peteiro, J. M. Vazquez-Rodriguez, and N. Alvarez-Garcia Growth-differentiation factor-15 for risk stratification in patients with acute chest pain Eur. Heart J., December 1, 2008; 29(23): 2947 - 2947. [Full Text] [PDF]