An overview of systematic reviews of diagnostic tests accuracy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bae JM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4183058 | biostudies-literature | 2014
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
An overview of systematic reviews of diagnostic tests accuracy.
Epidemiology and health 20140829
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. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: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 hosted by the German Cochrane Centre in 2004 brought together key methodologists in the area, many of whom became closely involved in the subsequent development of the methodological framework for DTA reviews. DTA reviews first appeared in The Cochrane Library in 2008 and are now an integral part of the work of the Collaboration.
| S-EPMC3851548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are a variety of ways in which accuracy of clinical tests can be summarised in systematic reviews. Variation in reporting of summary measures has only been assessed in a small survey restricted to meta-analyses of screening studies found in a single database. Therefore, we performed this study to assess the measures of accuracy used for reporting results of primary studies as well as their meta-analysis in systematic reviews of test accuracy studies.MethodsRelevant reviews on test accuracy were selected from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (1994-2000), which electronically searches seven bibliographic databases and manually searches key resources. The structured abstracts of these reviews were screened and information on accuracy measures was extracted from the full texts of 90 relevant reviews, 60 of which used meta-analysis.ResultsSensitivity or specificity was used for reporting the results of primary studies in 65/90 (72%) reviews, predictive values in 26/90 (28%), and likelihood ratios in 20/90 (22%). For meta-analysis, pooled sensitivity or specificity was used in 35/60 (58%) reviews, pooled predictive values in 11/60 (18%), pooled likelihood ratios in 13/60 (22%), and pooled diagnostic odds ratio in 5/60 (8%). Summary ROC was used in 44/60 (73%) of the meta-analyses. There were no significant differences in measures of test accuracy among reviews published earlier (1994-97) and those published later (1998-2000).ConclusionsThere is considerable variation in ways of reporting and summarising results of test accuracy studies in systematic reviews. There is a need for consensus about the best ways of reporting results of test accuracy studies in reviews.
| S-EPMC100326 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the methods and reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic tests.Data sourcesSystematic searches of Medline, Embase, and five other databases identified reviews of tests used in patients with cancer. Of these, 89 satisfied our inclusion criteria of reporting accuracy of the test compared with a reference test, including an electronic search, and published since 1990.Review methodsAll reviews were assessed for methods and reporting of objectives, search strategy, participants, clinical setting, index and reference tests, study design, study results, graphs, meta-analysis, quality, bias, and procedures in the review. We assessed 25 randomly selected reviews in more detail.Results75% (67) of the reviews stated inclusion criteria, 49% (44) tabulated characteristics of included studies, 40% (36) reported details of study design, 17% (15) reported on the clinical setting, 17% (15) reported on the severity of disease in participants, and 49% (44) reported on whether the tumours were primary, metastatic, or recurrent. Of the 25 reviews assessed in detail, 68% (17) stated the reference standard used in the review, 36% (9) reported the definition of a positive result for the index test, and 56% (14) reported sensitivity, specificity, and sample sizes for individual studies. Of the 89 reviews, 61% (54) attempted to formally synthesise results of the studies and 32% (29) reported formal assessments of study quality.ConclusionsReliability and relevance of current systematic reviews of diagnostic tests is compromised by poor reporting and review methods.
| S-EPMC1553548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the world, with 694,000 deaths each year. Despite improvements in treatment strategies in recent years, the overall survival rate of CRC is still very low and the survival rate is highly dependent on the stage at the time of diagnosis. Some biomarkers have shown great potential for early screening of CRC and some have been tested in systematic reviews (SRs). However, the quality of these SRs remains unclear and these SRs did not clarify which biomarker is the optimal diagnostic test. This overview will evaluate the methodological quality of available SRs and compare the diagnostic value of different biomarkers in order to find the best biomarker for diagnosing CRC.MethodsA comprehensive literature search for SRs published before February 2019 was conducted in the PubMed, Embase.com, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science without any language restrictions. We will use the assessment of multiple systematic reviews-2 instrument to assess the methodological quality of each SR. Bubble plots will be used to summarize the main characteristics and quality of SRs. Standard pairwise meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparison will be conducted to compare the diagnostic value of different biomarkers.ResultsThe results of this overview will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.ConclusionThe findings of this project will provide a general overview and evidence of the diagnostic value of biomarkers in detecting CRC.Prospero registration numberCRD42019125880.
| S-EPMC6587652 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Many diagnostic accuracy studies are never reported in full in a peer-reviewed journal. Searching for unpublished studies may avoid bias due to selective publication, enrich the power of systematic reviews, and thereby help to reduce research waste. We assessed searching practices among recent systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy. METHODS:We extracted data from 100 non-Cochrane systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy indexed in MEDLINE and published between October 2017 and January 2018 and from all 100 Cochrane systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy published by December 2018, irrespective of whether meta-analysis had been performed. RESULTS:Non-Cochrane and Cochrane reviews searched a median of 4 (IQR 3-5) and 6 (IQR 5-9) databases, respectively; most often MEDLINE/PubMed (n = 100 and n = 100) and EMBASE (n = 81 and n = 100). Additional efforts to identify studies beyond searching bibliographic databases were performed in 76 and 98 reviews, most often through screening reference lists (n = 71 and n = 96), review/guideline articles (n = 18 and n = 52), or citing articles (n = 3 and n = 42). Specific sources of unpublished studies were searched in 22 and 68 reviews, for example, conference proceedings (n = 4 and n = 18), databases only containing conference abstracts (n = 2 and n = 33), or trial registries (n = 12 and n = 39). At least one unpublished study was included in 17 and 23 reviews. Overall, 39 of 2082 studies (1.9%) included in non-Cochrane reviews were unpublished, and 64 of 2780 studies (2.3%) in Cochrane reviews, most often conference abstracts (97/103). CONCLUSION:Searching practices vary considerably across systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy. Unpublished studies are a minimal fraction of the evidence included in recent reviews.
| S-EPMC7317757 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this review is to determine whether automated computerised tests accurately identify patients with progressive cognitive impairment and, if so, to investigate their role in monitoring disease progression and/or response to treatment.Six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Institute for Scientific Information, PsycINFO, and ProQuest) were searched from January 2005 to August 2015 to identify papers for inclusion. Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of automated computerised tests for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early dementia against a reference standard were included. Where possible, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and likelihood ratios were calculated. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was used to assess risk of bias.Sixteen studies assessing 11 diagnostic tools for MCI and early dementia were included. No studies were eligible for inclusion in the review of tools for monitoring progressive disease and response to treatment. The overall quality of the studies was good. However, the wide range of tests assessed and the non-standardised reporting of diagnostic accuracy outcomes meant that statistical analysis was not possible.Some tests have shown promising results for identifying MCI and early dementia. However, concerns over small sample sizes, lack of replicability of studies, and lack of evidence available make it difficult to make recommendations on the clinical use of the computerised tests for diagnosing, monitoring progression, and treatment response for MCI and early dementia. Research is required to establish stable cut-off points for automated computerised tests used to diagnose patients with MCI or early dementia.
| S-EPMC5887872 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundA range of molecular amplification techniques have been developed for the diagnosis of Human African Trypanosomiasis (HAT); however, careful evaluation of these tests must precede implementation to ensure their high clinical accuracy. Here, we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of molecular amplification tests for HAT, the quality of articles and reasons for variation in accuracy.MethodologyData from studies assessing diagnostic molecular amplification tests were extracted and pooled to calculate accuracy. Articles were included if they reported sensitivity and specificity or data whereby values could be calculated. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS and selected studies were analysed using the bivariate random effects model.Results16 articles evaluating molecular amplification tests fulfilled the inclusion criteria: PCR (n?=?12), NASBA (n?=?2), LAMP (n?=?1) and a study comparing PCR and NASBA (n?=?1). Fourteen articles, including 19 different studies were included in the meta-analysis. Summary sensitivity for PCR on blood was 99.0% (95% CI 92.8 to 99.9) and the specificity was 97.7% (95% CI 93.0 to 99.3). Differences in study design and readout method did not significantly change estimates although use of satellite DNA as a target significantly lowers specificity. Sensitivity and specificity of PCR on CSF for staging varied from 87.6% to 100%, and 55.6% to 82.9% respectively.ConclusionHere, PCR seems to have sufficient accuracy to replace microscopy where facilities allow, although this conclusion is based on multiple reference standards and a patient population that was not always representative. Future studies should, therefore, include patients for which PCR may become the test of choice and consider well designed diagnostic accuracy studies to provide extra evidence on the value of PCR in practice. Another use of PCR for control of disease could be to screen samples collected from rural areas and test in reference laboratories, to spot epidemics quickly and direct resources appropriately.
| S-EPMC3254661 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHaving a penicillin allergy label associates with a higher risk for antibiotic resistance and increased health care use.ObjectiveWe sought to assess the accuracy of skin tests and specific IgE quantification in the diagnostic evaluation of patients reporting a penicillin/β-lactam allergy.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis, searching on MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. We included studies conducted in patients reporting a penicillin allergy and in whom skin tests and/or specific IgE quantification were performed and compared with drug challenge results. We quantitatively assessed the accuracy of diagnostic tests with bivariate random-effects meta-analyses. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore causes of heterogeneity. Studies' quality was evaluated using QUADAS-2 criteria.ResultsWe included 105 primary studies, assessing 31,761 participants. Twenty-seven studies were assessed by bivariate meta-analysis. Skin tests had a summary sensitivity of 30.7% (95% CI, 18.9%-45.9%) and a specificity of 96.8% (95% CI, 94.2%-98.3%), with a partial area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.686 (I2 = 38.2%). Similar results were observed for subanalyses restricted to patients reporting nonimmediate maculopapular exanthema or urticaria/angioedema. Specific IgE had a summary sensitivity of 19.3% (95% CI, 12.0%-29.4%) and a specificity of 97.4% (95% CI, 95.2%-98.6%), with a partial area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.420 (I2 = 8.5%). Projected predictive values mainly reflect the low frequency of true penicillin allergy.ConclusionsSkin tests and specific IgE quantification appear to have low sensitivity and high specificity. Because current evidence is insufficient for assessing the role of these tests in stratifying patients for delabeling, we identified key requirements needed for future studies.
| S-EPMC8019189 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19.Eligibility criteria and data analysisEligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset.Results5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%).ConclusionHigher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179452.
| S-EPMC7327913 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Acupuncture is increasingly used worldwide. It is becoming more accepted by both patients and healthcare providers. However, the current understanding of its adverse events (AEs) is fragmented. We conducted this overview to collect all systematic reviews (SRs) on the AEs of acupuncture and related therapies. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from inception to December 2015. Methodological quality of included reviews was assessed with a validated instrument. Evidence was narratively reported. Seventeen SRs covering various types of acupuncture were included. Methodological quality of the reviews was overall mediocre. Four major categories of AEs were identified, which are organ or tissue injuries (13 reviews, median: 36 cases, median deaths: 4), infections (11 reviews, median: 17 cases, median deaths: 0.5), local AEs or reactions (12 reviews, median: 8.5 cases, no deaths were reported), and other complications such as dizziness or syncope (11 reviews, median: 21 cases, no deaths were reported). Minor and serious AEs can occur during the use of acupuncture and related modalities, contrary to the common impression that acupuncture is harmless. Serious AEs are rare, but need significant attention as mortality can be associated with them. Referrals should consider acupuncturists' training credibility, and patient safety should be a core part of acupuncture education.
| S-EPMC5469776 | biostudies-literature