El Dib, ReginaTikkinen, Kari A. O.Akl, Elie A.Gomaa, Huda A.Mustafa, Reem A.Agarwal, ArnavCarpenter, Christopher R.Zhang, YuchenJorge, Eliane C.Almeida, Ricardo A. M. B.do Nascimento Junior, PauloDoles, Joao Vitor P.Mustafa, Ahmad A.Sadeghirad, BehnamLopes, Luciane C.Bergamaschi, Cristiane C.Suzumura, Erica A.Cardoso, Marilia M. A.Corrente, Jose EduardoStone, Samuel B.Schunemann, Holger J.Guyatt, Gordon H.2018-07-082025-08-272017-04El Dib, R, Tikkinen, K A O, Akl, E A, Gomaa, H A, Mustafa, R A, Agarwal, A, Carpenter, C R, Zhang, Y, Jorge, E C, Almeida, R A M B, do Nascimento Junior, P, Doles, J V P, Mustafa, A A, Sadeghirad, B, Lopes, L C, Bergamaschi, C C, Suzumura, E A, Cardoso, M M A, Corrente, J E, Stone, S B, Schunemann, H J & Guyatt, G H 2017, 'Systematic survey of randomized trials evaluating the impact of alternative diagnostic strategies on patient-important outcomes', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 84, pp. 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.12.009ORCID: /0000-0002-1389-8214/work/52696093http://hdl.handle.net/10138/237024Objectives: To provide a perspective on the current practice of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of diagnostic strategies focusing on patient-important outcomes. Study Design and Setting: We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE and included RCTs published in full-text reports that evaluated alternative diagnostic strategies. Results: Of 56,912 unique citations, we sampled 7,500 and included 103 eligible RCTs, therefore suggesting that MEDLINE includes approximately 781 diagnostic RCTs. The 103 eligible trials reported on: mortality (n = 41; 39.8%); morbidities (n = 63; 61.2%); symptoms/quality of life/functional status (n = 14; 13.6%); and on composite end points (n = 10; 9.7%). Of the studies that reported statistically significant results (n = 12; 11.6%), we judged 7 (58.3%) as at low risk of bias with respect to missing outcome data and 4 (33.3%) as at low risk of bias regarding blinding. Of the 41 RCTs that reported on mortality, only one (2.4%) reported statistically significant results. Of 63 RCTs addressing morbidity outcomes, 11 (17.5%) reported statistically significant results, all of which reported relative effects of greater than 20%. Conclusion: RCTs of diagnostic tests are not uncommon, and sometimes suggest benefits on patient-important outcomes but often suffer from limitations in sample size and conduct. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.9enginfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessClinical trialsDiagnostic techniques and proceduresAccuracyAlternative diagnostic strategiesPatient outcomeEvidence-based medicineLUNG-CANCERDOUBLE-BLINDULTRASOUNDECHOCARDIOGRAPHYTECHNOLOGIESMANAGEMENTFRAMEWORKUTILITYWASTECAREPublic health care science, environmental and occupational healthReview ArticleopenAccess1a708543-c03a-4386-9730-672c9fed4f4a85011275785000402849500015