BACKGROUND: Diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies for needle biopsy are frequently published in otolaryngology journals, but this body of literature has not been assessed for verification bias. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of DTA studies on needle biopsy of salivary gland lesions appearing in otolaryngology journals. Studies were assessed by 2 reviewers for verification bias. RESULTS: We identified 95 DTA studies for needle biopsy of salivary gland lesions. Eighty-one studies (84%) had verification bias. Five of the biased studies provided sufficient data to estimate the extent of bias. Verification bias was associated with an overestimate of sensitivity and an underestimate of specificity. Studies on core needle biopsy (CNB) had a lower rate of verification bias than fine-needle aspiration (FNA) studies. CONCLUSION: Verification bias is common in DTA studies of needle biopsy for salivary gland lesions published in ear, nose, and throat (ENT) journals. Such studies overestimated sensitivity and underestimated specificity.
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies for needle biopsy are frequently published in otolaryngology journals, but this body of literature has not been assessed for verification bias. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of DTA studies on needle biopsy of salivary gland lesions appearing in otolaryngology journals. Studies were assessed by 2 reviewers for verification bias. RESULTS: We identified 95 DTA studies for needle biopsy of salivary gland lesions. Eighty-one studies (84%) had verification bias. Five of the biased studies provided sufficient data to estimate the extent of bias. Verification bias was associated with an overestimate of sensitivity and an underestimate of specificity. Studies on core needle biopsy (CNB) had a lower rate of verification bias than fine-needle aspiration (FNA) studies. CONCLUSION: Verification bias is common in DTA studies of needle biopsy for salivary gland lesions published in ear, nose, and throat (ENT) journals. Such studies overestimated sensitivity and underestimated specificity.