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:AimsTo assess the diagnostic accuracy (DTA) of optical coherence tomography (OCT) for detecting glaucoma by systematically searching and appraising systematic reviews (SRs) on this issue.MethodsWe searched a database of SRs in eyes and vision maintained by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States on the DTA of OCT for detecting glaucoma. Two authors working independently screened the records, abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews checklist. We extracted quantitative DTA estimates as well as qualitative statements on their relevance to practice.ResultsWe included four SRs published between 2015 and 2018. These SRs included between 17 and 113 studies on OCT for glaucoma diagnosis. Two reviews were at low risk of bias and the other two had two to four domains at high or unclear risk of bias with concerns on applicability. The two reliable SRs reported the accuracy of average retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) thickness and found a sensitivity of 0.69 (0.63 to 0.73) and 0.78 (0.74 to 0.83) and a specificity of 0.94 (0.93 to 0.95) and 0.93 (0.92 to 0.95) in 57 and 50 studies, respectively. Only one review included a clear specification of the clinical pathway. Both reviews highlighted the limitations of primary DTA studies on this topic.ConclusionsThe quality of published DTA reviews on OCT for diagnosing glaucoma was mixed. Two reliable SRs found moderate sensitivity at high specificity for average RNFL thickness in diagnosing manifest glaucoma. Our overview suggests that the methodological quality of both primary and secondary DTA research on glaucoma is in need of improvement.
| S-EPMC7876780 | 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: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: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: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: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