Literature DB >> 11767953

Systematic reviews of diagnostic research. Considerations about assessment and incorporation of methodological quality.

H C de Vet1, T van der Weijden, J W Muris, J Heyrman, F Buntinx, J A Knottnerus.   

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to provide a theoretical background for performing and reading systematic reviews of diagnostic studies. We first discuss items for assessment of methodological quality in diagnostic studies and then present methods on how to incorporate these quality measures in systematic reviews. The items of internal validity determine whether the presented results of the individual studies are unbiased and can be trusted. Items of external validity determine to what extent the results are applicable outside the population in which the study was performed. The issues concern the adequacy of the study population, the performance and interpretation of the diagnostic tests and the presentation of the results. Several methods exist for incorporation of issues of methodological quality into systematic reviews, such as subgroup analyses, meta-regression analysis, and methodological scores. Publications of diagnostic studies should provide sufficient information to enable assessment of the methodological quality. Furthermore, publication of results of subgroup analyses should be promoted. Methodological criteria lists might help to improve the quality of systematic reviews of diagnostic research. With the items of methodological quality in mind the general practitioner might be better equipped to critically read and interpret diagnostic reviews.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11767953     DOI: 10.1023/a:1012751326462

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0393-2990            Impact factor:   8.082


  24 in total

Review 1.  How to read a paper. Papers that report diagnostic or screening tests.

Authors:  T Greenhalgh
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-08-30

2.  Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests.

Authors:  C B Begg
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Rethinking sensitivity and specificity.

Authors:  M A Hlatky; D B Mark; F E Harrell; K L Lee; R M Califf; D B Pryor
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1987-05-01       Impact factor: 2.778

4.  Workup bias in prediction research.

Authors:  R J Panzer; A L Suchman; P F Griner
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1987 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  On the accuracy of history, physical examination, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate in diagnosing low back pain in general practice. A criteria-based review of the literature.

Authors:  H M van den Hoogen; B W Koes; J T van Eijk; L M Bouter
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good.

Authors:  M C Reid; M S Lachs; A R Feinstein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995 Aug 23-30       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.

Authors:  R Jaeschke; G Guyatt; D L Sackett
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-02-02       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods.

Authors:  S Greenland
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1994-08-01       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  The assessment of diagnostic tests. A survey of current medical research.

Authors:  S B Sheps; M T Schechter
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1984-11-02       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Guidelines for the assessment of new diagnostic tests.

Authors:  Y T van der Schouw; A L Verbeek; S H Ruijs
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 6.016

View more
  3 in total

1.  Methodological quality of test accuracy studies included in systematic reviews in obstetrics and gynaecology: sources of bias.

Authors:  Rachel K Morris; Tara J Selman; Javier Zamora; Khalid S Khan
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2011-03-22       Impact factor: 2.809

2.  Screening for malignancy in low back pain patients: a systematic review.

Authors:  Nicholas Henschke; Christopher G Maher; Kathryn M Refshauge
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-06-14       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews.

Authors:  Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan J Deeks; Yemisi Takwoingi; Petra Macaskill
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2013-10-07
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.