OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the methodological quality of diagnostic accuracy studies on coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography using the QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies included in systematic reviews) tool. METHODS: Each QUADAS item was individually defined to adapt it to the special requirements of studies on coronary CT angiography. Two independent investigators analysed 118 studies using 12 QUADAS items. Meta-regression and pooled analyses were performed to identify possible effects of methodological quality items on estimates of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The overall methodological quality of coronary CT studies was merely moderate. They fulfilled a median of 7.5 out of 12 items. Only 9 of the 118 studies fulfilled more than 75 % of possible QUADAS items. One QUADAS item ("Uninterpretable Results") showed a significant influence (P = 0.02) on estimates of diagnostic accuracy with "no fulfilment" increasing specificity from 86 to 90 %. Furthermore, pooled analysis revealed that each QUADAS item that is not fulfilled has the potential to change estimates of diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality of studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive coronary CT is only moderate and was found to affect the sensitivity and specificity. An improvement is highly desirable because good methodology is crucial for adequately assessing imaging technologies. KEY POINTS: • Good methodological quality is a basic requirement in diagnostic accuracy studies. • Most coronary CT angiography studies have only been of moderate design quality. • Weak methodological quality will affect the sensitivity and specificity. • No improvement in methodological quality was observed over time. • Authors should consider the QUADAS checklist when undertaking accuracy studies.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the methodological quality of diagnostic accuracy studies on coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography using the QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies included in systematic reviews) tool. METHODS: Each QUADAS item was individually defined to adapt it to the special requirements of studies on coronary CT angiography. Two independent investigators analysed 118 studies using 12 QUADAS items. Meta-regression and pooled analyses were performed to identify possible effects of methodological quality items on estimates of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The overall methodological quality of coronary CT studies was merely moderate. They fulfilled a median of 7.5 out of 12 items. Only 9 of the 118 studies fulfilled more than 75 % of possible QUADAS items. One QUADAS item ("Uninterpretable Results") showed a significant influence (P = 0.02) on estimates of diagnostic accuracy with "no fulfilment" increasing specificity from 86 to 90 %. Furthermore, pooled analysis revealed that each QUADAS item that is not fulfilled has the potential to change estimates of diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality of studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive coronary CT is only moderate and was found to affect the sensitivity and specificity. An improvement is highly desirable because good methodology is crucial for adequately assessing imaging technologies. KEY POINTS: • Good methodological quality is a basic requirement in diagnostic accuracy studies. • Most coronary CT angiography studies have only been of moderate design quality. • Weak methodological quality will affect the sensitivity and specificity. • No improvement in methodological quality was observed over time. • Authors should consider the QUADAS checklist when undertaking accuracy studies.
Authors: S M M Jenkins; N Johnston; N M Hawkins; C-M Messow; J Shand; K J Hogg; H Eteiba; G McKillop; N E R Goodfield; A McConnachie; F G Dunn Journal: QJM Date: 2010-09-16
Authors: Jose A Rocha-Filho; Ron Blankstein; Leonid D Shturman; Hiram G Bezerra; David R Okada; Ian S Rogers; Brian Ghoshhajra; Udo Hoffmann; Gudrun Feuchtner; Wilfred S Mamuya; Thomas J Brady; Ricardo C Cury Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Christoph Langer; Andreas Peterschröder; Krista Franzke; Hermann Esdorn; Hermann Körperich; Hans Meyer; Dieter Horstkotte; Marcus Wiemer Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2009 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Nuno Bettencourt; João Rocha; Mónica Carvalho; Daniel Leite; Andre Michael Toschke; Bruno Melica; Lino Santos; Alberto Rodrigues; Manuel Gonçalves; Pedro Braga; Madalena Teixeira; Lino Simões; Sanjay Rajagopalan; Vasco Gama Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-04-06 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Jacob M van Werkhoven; Mark W Heijenbrok; Joanne D Schuijf; J Wouter Jukema; Mark M Boogers; Ernst E van der Wall; Joop H M Schreur; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2009-12-21 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Devdas T Inderbitzin; Jens Bremerich; Peter Matt; Martin T R Grapow; Friedrich S Eckstein; Oliver Reuthebuch Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 1.637