Aplicación del sistema GRADE a las recomendaciones de pruebas diagnósticas en la Guía Colombiana de Falla Cardíaca
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.iatreia.26737Palabras clave:
diagnóstico, guía, insuficiencia cardíacaResumen
Introducción: el ejercicio clínico trae implícito un grado de incertidumbre en cuanto al diagnóstico preciso, en relación con un cúmulo de síntomas y signos en el contexto de los factores de riesgo predisponentes detectados al hacer una historia clínica cuidadosa y completa. Se requiere entonces que los clínicos estén familiarizados con las propiedades de las pruebas diagnósticas para utilizarlas en forma adecuada y no como una pesquisa infructuosa y poco específica.
Metodología: llevamos a cabo una revisión de las características operativas de las pruebas diagnósticas, incluyendo sensibilidad, especificidad, valores predictivos positivo y negativo, cocientes de verosimilitud (LR, por su sigla en inglés) positivo y negativo y curvas ROC, los cuales funcionan como base para establecer las recomendaciones de las pruebas diagnósticas en el sistema GRADE en la Guía Colombiana de Falla Cardíaca.
Resultados: explicamos cómo hacer la calificación de las pruebas diagnósticas con la metodología GRADE, teniendo en cuenta las características operativas de las pruebas, y las variables que influyen en la graduación de las recomendaciones, tales como el riesgo de sesgos, el carácter directo o no de la prueba, la presencia de inconsistencia o imprecisión y el sesgo de publicación.
Conclusión: la metodología GRADE de calificación de la evidencia en las pruebas diagnósticas permite una valoración completa de estas, tanto en sus características operativas como de aplicación en la práctica clínica.
Descargas
Citas
(1.) Jaimes F. Pruebas diagnósticas: uso e interpretación. Acta Med Colomb. 2007 Ene-Mar;32(1):29-33.
(2.) Feltcher R, Fletcher S. Diagnosis. In: Clinical Epiemidology: The Essentials. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincot Williasm and Wilkins; 2005. p. 35-58.
(3.) Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Uses and abuses of screening tests. Lancet. 2002 Mar;359(9309):881-4. Erratum in: Lancet. 2008 Jun;371(9629):1998.
(4.) Knottnerus JA, Buntinx F, van Weel C. General introduction: evaluation of diagnostic procedures. In: Knottnerus JA, Buntinx F, editors. The Evidence Base of Clinical Diagnosis: Theory and methods of diagnostic research. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Wiley; 2011. p. 1-19.
(5.) Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Coomarasamy A, Khan KS, Bossuyt PM. Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods. Health Technol Assess. 2007 Dec;11(50):iii, ix-51.
(6.) Parikh R, Mathai A, Parikh S, Chandra Sekhar G, Thomas R. Understanding and using sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2008 Jan-Feb;56(1):45-50.
(7.) Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests. 1: Sensitivity and specificity. BMJ. 1994 Jun;308(6943):1552.
(8.) Loong TW. Understanding sensitivity and specificity with the right side of the brain. BMJ. 2003 Sep;327(7417):716-9. Erratum in: BMJ. 2003 Nov;327(7422):1043.
(9.) Akobeng AK. Understanding diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Acta Paediatr. 2007 Mar;96(3):338-41.
(10.) Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ. 1994 Jul;309(6947):102.
(11.) Stojanovic M, Apostolovic M, Stojanovic D, Milosevic Z, Toplaovic A, Lakusic V, et al. Understanding sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Vojnosanit Pregl. 2014 Nov;71(11):1062-5.
(12.) Collier J, Huebscher R. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values: diagnosing purple mange. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2010 Apr;22(4):205-9. DOI 10.1111/j.1745-7599.2010.00496.x.
(13.) Chu K. An introduction to sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios. Emerg Med. 1999 Sep;11(3):175-81. DOI 10.1046/j.1442-2026.1999.00041.x.
(14.) McMurray JJ, Adamopoulos S, Anker SD, Auricchio A, Böhm M, Dickstein K, et al. ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2012 Jul;33(14):1787-847. DOI 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs104. Erratum in: Eur Heart J. 2013 Jan;34(2):158.
(15.) Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE Jr, Drazner MH, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct;62(16):e147-239. DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.019.
(16.) Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Refining clinical diagnosis with likelihood ratios. Lancet. 2005 Apr 23-29;365(9469):1500-5.
(17.) Parikh R, Parikh S, Arun E, Thomas R. Likelihood ratios: clinical application in day-to-day practice. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2009 May-Jun;57(3):217-21. DOI 10.4103/0301-4738.49397.
(18.) Fagan TJ. Letter: Nomogram for Bayes theorem. N Engl J Med. 1975 Jul;293(5):257.
(19.) McGee S. Simplifying likelihood ratios. J Gen Intern Med. 2002 Aug;17(8):646-9.
(20.) Spitalnic S. Test properties 2: Likelihood ratios, Bayes’ formula, and receiver operating characteristic curves. Hosp Physician. 2004 Oct:53-8.
(21.) Ledwidge M, Gallagher J, Conlon C, Tallon E, O’Connell E, Dawkins I, et al. Natriuretic peptidebased screening and collaborative care for heart failure: the STOP-HF randomized trial. JAMA. 2013 Jul;310(1):66-74. DOI 10.1001/jama.2013.7588.
(22.) Lusted LB. Logical analysis in roentgen diagnosis. Radiology. 1960 Feb;74:178-93.
(23.) Hajian-Tilaki K. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve Analysis for Medical Diagnostic Test Evaluation. Caspian J Intern Med. 2013 Spring;4(2):627-35.
(24.) Takwoingi Y, Riley RD, Deeks JJ. Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies in mental health. Evid Based Ment Health. 2015 Nov;18(4):103-9. DOI 10.1136/eb-2015-102228.
(25.) Putter H, Fiocco M, Stijnen T. Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies with multiple thresholds using survival methods. Biom J. 2010 Feb;52(1):95-110. DOI 10.1002/bimj.200900073.
(26.) Hamza TH, Arends LR, van Houwelingen HC, Stijnen T. Multivariate random effects meta-analysis of diagnostic tests with multiple thresholds. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Nov;9:73. DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-9-73.
(27.) Riley RD, Ahmed I, Ensor J, Takwoingi Y, Kirkham A, Morris RK, et al. Meta-analysis of test accuracy studies: an exploratory method for investigating the impact of missing thresholds. Syst Rev. 2015 Feb;4:12. DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-4-12.
(28.) Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D, Treadwell JR, Reston JT, Bass EB, et al. AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions--agency for healthcare research and quality and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 May;63(5):513-23. DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.009.
(29.) Atkins D, Fink K, Slutsky J; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; North American Evidence-based Practice Centers. Better information for better health care: the Evidence-based Practice Center program and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Ann Intern Med. 2005 Jun;142(12 Pt 2):1035-41.
(30.) Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, Glasziou P, Jaeschke R, Vist GE, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ [Internet]. 2008 May [cited 2016 Feb 17];336(7653):[1106-10]. Available from:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2386626&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
(31.) Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ [Internet]. 2008 Apr [cited 2014 Jul 29];336(7650): [924-6]. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2335261&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
(32.) Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):401-6. DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015.
(33.) Thornton J, Alderson P, Tan T, Turner C, Latchem S, Shaw E, et al. Introducing GRADE across the NICE clinical guideline program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;66(2):124-31. DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.12.007.
(34.) Treweek S, Oxman AD, Alderson P, Bossuyt PM, Brandt L, Brożek J, et al. Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence (DECIDE): protocol and preliminary results. Implement Sci [Internet]. 2013 Jan [cited 2016 Apr 15];8:[6]. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3553065&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
(35.) Hsu J, Brożek JL, Terracciano L, Kreis J, Compalati E, Stein AT, et al. Application of GRADE: making evidence-based recommendations about diagnostic tests in clinical practice guidelines. Implement Sci. 2011 Jun;6:62. DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-6-62.
(36.) Brozek JL, Akl EA, Jaeschke R, Lang DM, Bossuyt P, Glasziou P, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: Part 2 of 3. The GRADE approach to grading quality of evidence about diagnostic tests and strategies. Allergy. 2009 Aug;64(8):1109-16. DOI 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02083.x.
(37.) West S, King V, Carey T, Lohr K, McKoy N, Sutton S, et al. 47 Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence: Summary. In: AHRQ Evidence Report Summaries [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 1998-2005 [cited 2016 Apr 17]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11930/
(38.) Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Dinnes J, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools. J Clin Epidemiol [Internet]. 2005 Jan [cited 2016 Apr 17];58(1):[1-12]. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435604001659
(39.) Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Takwoingi Y, Macaskill P. Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews. Syst Rev [Internet]. 2013 Oct [cited 2016 Mar 26];2:[82]. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3851548&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
(40.) Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, van der Meulen JH, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA [Internet]. 1999 Sep [cited 2016 Apr 17];282(11): [1061-6]. Available from: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=191668
(41.) Glasziou PP, Irwig L, Bain CJ, Colditz GA. How to review the evidence: systematic identification and review of the scientific literature. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council; 2000.
(42.) Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol [Internet]. 2003 Nov [cited 2015 Mar 8];3:[25]. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=305345&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
(43.) Santaguida PL, Riley CM, Matchar DB. Assessing Risk of Bias as a Domain of Quality in Medical Test Studies. 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 [cited 2015 Mar 8]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK98233/
(44.) Singh S, Chang SM, Matchar DB, Bass EB. Chapter 7: grading a body of evidence on diagnostic tests. J Gen Intern Med [Internet]. 2012 Jun [cited 2016 Apr 17];27 Suppl 1:[S4755]. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3364356&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
(45.) Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA. A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med. 2001 Oct;20(19):2865-84.
(46.) Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social, Departamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación, Instituto de evaluación Tecnológica en Salud. Guía de Práctica Clínica para la prevención, diagnóstico, tratamiento y rehabilitación de la falla cardíaca en población mayor de 18 años clasificación B, C y D. [Internet]. Bogotá: Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social; 2015 [consultado 2016 Abr 17]. Disponible en: http://gpc.minsalud.gov.co/guias/Documents/Cardiaca/GPC_FallaCardiaca_Socializacion08052015.pdf
(47.) Gopalakrishna G, Mustafa RA, Davenport C, Scholten RJ, Hyde C, Brozek J, et al. Applying Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to diagnostic tests was challenging but doable. J Clin Epidemiol [Internet]. 2014 Jul [cited 2016 Mar 1];67(7):[760-8]. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435614000444
(48.) Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol [Internet]. 2011 Dec [cited 2016 Apr 15];64(12):[1277-
. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435611001818
(49.) Laine C, Horton R, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Godlee F, et al. Clinical trial registration--looking back and moving ahead. N Engl J Med [Internet]. 2007 Jun [cited 2016 Apr 15];356(26):[2734-6]. Available from: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe078110#t=article
(50.) Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol [Internet]. 2011 Apr [cited 2016 Apr 13];64(4):[395-400]. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435610003318
(51.) Singh S, Chang SM, Matchar DB, Bass EB. Grading a body of evidence on diagnostic tests. In: Chang SM, Matchar DB, editors. Methods guide for medical test reviews [Internet]. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012 [cited 2016 May 2]. Available from: https://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/246/558/Methods-Guide-for-Medical-Test-Reviews_Full-Guide_20120530.pdf
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2017 Iatreia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Los artículos publicados en la revista están disponibles para ser utilizados bajo la licencia Creative Commons, específicamente son de Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional.
Los trabajos enviados deben ser inéditos y suministrados exclusivamente a la Revista; se exige al autor que envía sus contribuciones presentar los formatos: presentación de artículo y responsabilidad de autoría completamente diligenciados.
