Correspondence  |   October 2017
Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: The Methodologic Approach Matters!
Author Notes
  • Hôpital Louis Pradel, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France (M.J.-L.). matthias.jl@gmail.com
  • (Accepted for publication July 7, 2017.)
    (Accepted for publication July 7, 2017.)×
Article Information
Correspondence
Correspondence   |   October 2017
Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: The Methodologic Approach Matters!
Anesthesiology 10 2017, Vol.127, 728-729. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001824
Anesthesiology 10 2017, Vol.127, 728-729. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001824
With regard to the recent Anesthesiology article by Biais et al.,1  we acknowledge the overall quality of the report and consider the relevancy of the topic of underlying research. However, we have found several methodologic concerns that we would like to address.
First, Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies have been developed as a list of items2,3  that contribute to the completeness, transparency, and quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. We found that key items were lacking in the study from Biais et al.1  The study should have included a degree of blinding that describes whether clinical information and index test results were available to the assessors of the reference standard. A flow diagram is also required to evaluate the risk of selection bias. The reproducibility of the index test and the reference standard should also have been reported. Moreover, the studies cited in the article that support the rationale of the reference standard and its cutoff do not to support an increase of 10% of stroke volume after volume expansion measured by proAQT (Pulsion Medical Systems, Germany) that defined fluid responders.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large