Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Leeflang MM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3851548 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews.
Leeflang Mariska M G MM Deeks Jonathan J JJ Takwoingi Yemisi Y Macaskill Petra P
Systematic reviews 20131007
In 1996, shortly after the founding of The Cochrane Collaboration, leading figures in test evaluation research established a Methods Group to focus on the relatively new and rapidly evolving methods for the systematic review of studies of diagnostic tests. Seven years later, the Collaboration decided it was time to develop a publication format and methodology for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) reviews, as well as the software needed to implement these reviews in The Cochrane Library. A meeting h ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:A pretest probability must be selected to calculate data to help clinicians, guideline boards and policy makers interpret diagnostic accuracy parameters. When multiple analyses for the same target condition are compared, identical pretest probabilities might be selected to facilitate the comparison. Some pretest probabilities may lead to exaggerations of the patient harms or benefits, and guidance on how and why to select a specific pretest probability is minimally described. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the data sources and methods used in Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) reviews for determining pretest probabilities to facilitate the interpretation of DTA parameters. A secondary aim was to assess the use of identical pretest probabilities to compare multiple meta-analyses within the same target condition. METHODS:Cochrane DTA reviews presenting at least one meta-analytic estimate of the sensitivity and/or specificity as a primary analysis published between 2008 and January 2018 were included. Study selection and data extraction were performed by one author and checked by other authors. Observed data sources (e.g. studies in the review, or external sources) and methods to select pretest probabilities (e.g. median) were categorized. RESULTS:Fifty-nine DTA reviews were included, comprising of 308 meta-analyses. A pretest probability was used in 148 analyses. Authors used included studies in the DTA review, external sources, and author consensus as data sources for the pretest probability. Measures of central tendency with or without a measure of dispersion were used to determine the pretest probabilities, with the median most commonly used. Thirty-two target conditions had at least one identical pretest probability for all of the meta-analyses within their target condition. About half of the used identical pretest probabilities were inside the prevalence ranges from all analyses within a target condition. CONCLUSIONS:Multiple sources and methods were used to determine (identical) pretest probabilities in Cochrane DTA reviews. Indirectness and severity of downstream consequences may influence the acceptability of the certainty in calculated data with pretest probabilities. Consider: whether to present normalized frequencies, the influence of pretest probabilities on normalized frequencies, and whether to use identical pretest probabilities for meta-analyses in a target condition.
| S-EPMC7161259 | biostudies-literature
Project description:When performing a systematic review, researchers screen the articles retrieved after a broad search strategy one by one, which is time-consuming. Computerised support of this screening process has been applied with varying success. This is partly due to the dependency on large amounts of data to develop models that predict inclusion. In this paper, we present an approach to choose which data to use in model training and compare it with established approaches. We used a dataset of 50 Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews, and each was used as a target review. From the remaining 49 reviews, we selected those that most closely resembled the target review's clinical topic using the cosine similarity metric. Included and excluded studies from these selected reviews were then used to develop our prediction models. The performance of models trained on the selected reviews was compared against models trained on studies from all available reviews. The prediction models performed best with a larger number of reviews in the training set and on target reviews that had a research subject similar to other reviews in the dataset. Our approach using cosine similarity may reduce computational costs for model training and the duration of the screening process.
| S-EPMC9292892 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSystematic reviews of medical imaging diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies are affected by between-study heterogeneity due to a range of factors. Failure to appropriately assess the extent and causes of heterogeneity compromises the interpretability of systematic review findings.ObjectiveTo assess how heterogeneity has been examined in medical imaging DTA studies.Evidence reviewThe PubMed database was searched for systematic reviews of medical imaging DTA studies that performed a meta-analysis. The search was limited to the 40 journals with highest impact factor in the radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging category in the InCites Journal Citation Reports of 2021 to reach a sample size of 200 to 300 included studies. Descriptive analysis was performed to characterize the imaging modality, target condition, type of meta-analysis model used, strategies for evaluating heterogeneity, and sources of heterogeneity identified. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess whether any factors were associated with at least 1 source of heterogeneity being identified in the included meta-analyses. Methodological quality evaluation was not performed. Data analysis occurred from October to December 2022.FindingsA total of 242 meta-analyses involving a median (range) of 987 (119-441 510) patients across a diverse range of disease categories and imaging modalities were included. The extent of heterogeneity was adequately described (ie, whether it was absent, low, moderate, or high) in 220 studies (91%) and was most commonly assessed using the I2 statistic (185 studies [76%]) and forest plots (181 studies [75%]). Heterogeneity was rated as moderate to high in 191 studies (79%). Of all included meta-analyses, 122 (50%) performed subgroup analysis and 87 (36%) performed meta-regression. Of the 242 studies assessed, 189 (78%) included 10 or more primary studies. Of these 189 studies, 60 (32%) did not perform meta-regression or subgroup analysis. Reasons for being unable to investigate sources of heterogeneity included inadequate reporting of primary study characteristics and a low number of included primary studies. Use of meta-regression was associated with identification of at least 1 source of variability (odds ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.11-3.23; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review of assessment of heterogeneity in medical imaging DTA meta-analyses, most meta-analyses were impacted by a moderate to high level of heterogeneity, presenting interpretive challenges. These findings suggest that, despite the development and availability of more rigorous statistical models, heterogeneity appeared to be incomplete, inconsistently evaluated, or methodologically questionable in many cases, which lessened the interpretability of the analyses performed; comprehensive heterogeneity assessment should be addressed at the author level by improving personal familiarity with appropriate statistical methodology for assessing heterogeneity and involving biostatisticians and epidemiologists in study design, as well as at the editorial level, by mandating adherence to methodologic standards in primary DTA studies and DTA meta-analyses.
| S-EPMC10905313 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCochrane reviews are one of the best known and most trusted sources of evidence-based information in health care. While steps have been taken to make Cochrane intervention reviews accessible to a diverse readership, little is known about the accessibility of the newcomer to the Cochrane library: diagnostic test accuracy reviews (DTARs). The current qualitative study explored how healthcare decision makers, who varied in their knowledge and experience with test accuracy research and systematic reviews, read and made sense of DTARs.MethodsA purposive sample of clinicians, researchers and policy makers (n = 21) took part in a series of think-aloud interviews, using as interview material the first three DTARs published in the Cochrane library. Thematic qualitative analysis of the transcripts was carried out to identify patterns in participants' 'reading' and interpretation of the reviews and the difficulties they encountered.ResultsParticipants unfamiliar with the design and methodology of DTARs found the reviews largely inaccessible and experienced a range of difficulties stemming mainly from the mismatch between background knowledge and level of explanation provided in the text. Experience with systematic reviews of interventions did not guarantee better understanding and, in some cases, led to confusion and misinterpretation. These difficulties were further exacerbated by poor layout and presentation, which affected even those with relatively good knowledge of DTARs and had a negative impact not only on their understanding of the reviews but also on their motivation to engage with the text. Comparison between the readings of the three reviews showed that more accessible presentation, such as presenting the results as natural frequencies, significantly increased participants' understanding.ConclusionsThe study demonstrates that authors and editors should pay more attention to the presentation as well as the content of Cochrane DTARs, especially if the reports are aimed at readers with various levels of background knowledge and experience. It also raises the question as to the anticipated target audience of the reports and suggests that different groups of healthcare decision-makers may require different modes of presentation.
| S-EPMC3663697 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the performance of the automated abstract screening tool Rayyan.MethodsThe records obtained from the search for three systematic reviews were manually screened in four stages. At the end of each stage, Rayyan was used to predict the eligibility score for the remaining records. At two different thresholds (≤2.5 and < 2.5 for exclusion of a record) Rayyan-generated ratings were compared with the decisions made by human reviewers in the manual screening process and the tool's accuracy metrics were calculated.ResultsTwo thousand fifty-four records were screened manually, of which 379 were judged to be eligible for full-text assessment, and 112 were eventually included in the final review. For finding records eligible for full-text assessment, at the threshold of < 2.5 for exclusion, Rayyan managed to achieve sensitivity values of 97-99% with specificity values of 19-58%, while at the threshold of ≤2.5 for exclusion it had a specificity of 100% with sensitivity values of 1-29%. For the task of finding eligible reports for inclusion in the final review, almost similar results were obtained.DiscussionAt the threshold of < 2.5 for exclusion, Rayyan managed to be a reliable tool for excluding ineligible records, but it was not much reliable for finding eligible records. We emphasize that this study was conducted on diagnostic test accuracy reviews, which are more difficult to screen due to inconsistent terminology.
| S-EPMC9161508 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Cochrane Collaboration says that the Cochrane handbook for diagnostic test accuracy reviews (DTAR) is currently in development as per the Cochrane Collaboration. This implies that the methodology of systematic reviews (SR) of diagnostic test accuracy is still a matter of debate. At this point, comparison of methodologies for SR in case of interventions as against diagnostics would be helpful to understand DTAR.
| S-EPMC4183058 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Systematic reviews are critical for obtaining accurate estimates of diagnostic test accuracy, yet these require extracting information buried in free text articles, an often laborious process. OBJECTIVE:We create a dataset describing the data extraction and synthesis processes in 63 DTA systematic reviews, and demonstrate its utility by using it to replicate the data synthesis in the original reviews. METHOD:We construct our dataset using a custom automated extraction pipeline complemented with manual extraction, verification, and post-editing. We evaluate using manual assessment by two annotators and by comparing against data extracted from source files. RESULTS:The constructed dataset contains 5,848 test results for 1,354 diagnostic tests from 1,738 diagnostic studies. We observe an extraction error rate of 0.06-0.3%. CONCLUSIONS:This constitutes the first dataset describing the later stages of the DTA systematic review process, and is intended to be useful for automating or evaluating the process.
| S-EPMC6371350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews with meta-analyses often contain many statistical tests. This multiplicity may increase the risk of type I error. Few attempts have been made to address the problem of statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews. Before the implications are properly considered, the size of the issue deserves clarification. Because of the emphasis on bias evaluation and because of the editorial processes involved, Cochrane reviews may contain more multiplicity than their non-Cochrane counterparts. This study measured the quantity of statistical multiplicity present in a population of systematic reviews and aimed to assess whether this quantity is different in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.Methods/principal findingsWe selected all the systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group containing a meta-analysis and matched them with comparable non-Cochrane reviews. We counted the number of statistical tests done in each systematic review. The median number of tests overall was 10 (interquartile range (IQR) 6 to 18). The median was 12 in Cochrane and 8 in non-Cochrane reviews (difference in medians 4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0-19.0). The proportion that used an assessment of risk of bias as a reason for doing extra analyses was 42% in Cochrane and 28% in non-Cochrane reviews (difference in proportions 14% (95% CI -8 to 36). The issue of multiplicity was addressed in 6% of all the reviews.Conclusion/significanceStatistical multiplicity in systematic reviews requires attention. We found more multiplicity in Cochrane reviews than in non-Cochrane reviews. Many of the reasons for the increase in multiplicity may well represent improved methodological approaches and greater transparency, but multiplicity may also cause an increased risk of spurious conclusions. Few systematic reviews, whether Cochrane or non-Cochrane, address the issue of multiplicity.
| S-EPMC3229598 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearch turnover in the HIV field is rapid, and as a result, maintaining high-quality, up-to-date, and relevant systematic reviews is a challenge. One approach is to frequently update published reviews.MethodsWe evaluated the methods and relevance of all HIV systematic reviews and protocols published in the Cochrane Library over a 16-year period (2000-2016) to determine the need to update published reviews or complete of reviews in progress.ResultsOf 148 published reviews and protocols, 129 (87%) were identified as not for updating or progression to publication, mostly due to research questions which were either entirely outdated or addressed questions in an outdated manner (N = 89; 60%); this was anticipated for older reviews, but was found also to be the case for recent publications. Some research questions were also inadequately conceptualized, particularly when complex pragmatic trials or behavioral interventions were included.ConclusionsWe suggest that authors clearly characterize interventions and synthesis approaches in their review protocols. In research fields, such as HIV, where questions change frequently, systematic reviews and protocols should be regularly re-evaluated to ensure relevance to current questions. This process of re-evaluation should be incorporated into the methods of living systematic reviews.
| S-EPMC6366015 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMalignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly invasive tumor caused primarily by asbestos exposure. In recent decades, the incidence of MPM has shown an increasing trend, posing a great threat to human health. Although there is currently no effective way to treat MPM, patients can survive for more than 5 years if the tumor is removed early. Several systematic reviews (SRs) have evaluated the diagnostic value of biomarkers for diagnosing MPM. However, no studies have been conducted to analyze the quality of these SRs and it remains unclear which biomarker is the excellent diagnostic test. This study aims to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and reanalyze the published data based on SRs to find the optimal biomarker for the early diagnosis of MPM.MethodsA systematic search will be performed in PubMed, Embase.com, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science to identify SRs reporting value of biomarkers for detecting MPM. We will evaluate the risk of bias of the included SRs according to the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) instrument. Standard pairwise meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparison will be used to compare the diagnostic value of different biomarkers.ResultsThe results of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.ConclusionThis study will reanalyze the published data based on SRs to find a biomarker with the superior diagnostic performance for the diagnosis of MPM.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval and patient consent are not required as this study is an overview based on published systematic reviews.Prospero registration numberCRD42019125880.
| S-EPMC6587538 | biostudies-literature