"ypes of Susie ‘Eoononie ana beesion Trerapeute Stusle— ——Prognetie Stucls— Diagnose studios ‘ralyees Dereon Investigating the Investing he Trvestigating ‘an Economie of Resuts of Hesimert uteame of Disease Diagostc Test Decision Roce! Level! 1. Randomzod conroliod «a respectve ctu! <4. Testing of provously 2 Cnet canile costs tal 2 Systematic review? evened dagrostic ‘nd alternates: va 2. Signifeant iterence of Level suis ‘teria in seves of tes ebtained fem many 2. No signticant ateronco ‘consecutive patents ties mutnay ut rarow contence ‘wth universal eppeg senstityonaiees Intanale refrence “god” standore) 2, Systematic review of 2. systemate review of 2, Syetematic review of vel studies Level randomized on vel stucies ‘oles tras (ctucies were nomogeneous) Level] 4. Prospective cohort 1. Retrosoectve study’ 1, Development of siagnostc 1. Cina sensible costs st 2 Stuy of urretoa ‘ertria on bats of con ‘od altratnes va 2, Poorly randomzes ‘onto fom a secure patents ch es ootane tan ‘controled te Drevous randomized universal applied refer ited studies: muttway ‘0H tow) convoted val free “go” stance) sensttyanalses 3, Systeate review 23. Syetomatc vow 2, Systematic review of 2, Sytemat review of 2 Lovell studies of Lovell studies Level studies Livell studies ©. nonhomogeneous Level ese Level 4 Casecontol study? 4. Study of nonconsecutve 4. Limited atematves 2. Revospecti cohort Patients (co consistent and costs: poor su ‘onledrterance "gle" ‘estimates 3. Systematic even! Stand) 2, Systematic even? ‘of Lovet studios 2, Syetomate vow of ‘oF Lovet suc Lovet stu Level Case series (no, of Case series A. Casecontl stucy No sensittyanaises historical, contr! wou) 2. Poo rooronce standard Lovely Expert opinion pert opinion xen epnion Expert opinion 1 Al ptints wore ewote at he same point inher dlsease course (nception cohen} wih 280% olawup of envledpatiets. 2. Atty of resus trom two or moc previous stutles. 8, Patents were compared wth a cont group of patients treated tthe same te and insti, 4. Te stay was nist ater treatment was perf. 5. Paton wth a parteular outcome ("ases" wth or exo outcome "contol" with, or example, total hip artoplasty tat dd not a, {aed otal artropasty were comcared with those who di not have the