Peter J Goebell1, Ashish M Kamat2, Richard J Sylvester3, Peter Black4, Michael Droller5, Guilherme Godoy6, M'Liss A Hudson7, Kerstin Junker8, Wassim Kassouf9, Margaret A Knowles10, Wolfgang A Schulz11, Roland Seiler12, Bernd J Schmitz-Dräger13. 1. Urologische Klinik, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, Erlangen, Germany. 2. Department of Urology, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 3. EORTC Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium. 4. Department of Urology, Division of Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 5. Department of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY. 6. Scott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX. 7. Ochsner Clinic Foundation, Tom and Gayle Benson Cancer Center, New Orleans, LA. 8. Urologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarland, Germany. 9. Department of Surgery (Urology), McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 10. Section of Experimental Oncology, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK. 11. Urologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf, Germany. 12. Department of Urology, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland. 13. Schön Klinik Nürnberg Fürth, Fürth, Germany; Urologie 24, Nürnberg, Germany. Electronic address: bernd_sd@yahoo.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: With rapidly increasing numbers of publications, assessments of study quality, reporting quality, and classification of studies according to their level of evidence or developmental stage have become key issues in weighing the relevance of new information reported. Diagnostic marker studies are often criticized for yielding highly discrepant and even controversial results. Much of this discrepancy has been attributed to differences in study quality. So far, numerous tools for measuring study quality have been developed, but few of them have been used for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. This is owing to the fact that most tools are complicated and time consuming, suffer from poor reproducibility, and do not permit quantitative scoring. METHODS: The International Bladder Cancer Network (IBCN) has adopted this problem and has systematically identified the more commonly used tools developed since 2000. RESULTS: In this review, those tools addressing study quality (Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale), reporting quality (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy), and developmental stage (IBCN phases) of studies on diagnostic markers in bladder cancer are introduced and critically analyzed. Based upon this, the IBCN has launched an initiative to assess and validate existing tools with emphasis on diagnostic bladder cancer studies. CONCLUSIONS: The development of simple and reproducible tools for quality assessment of diagnostic marker studies permitting quantitative scoring is suggested.
OBJECTIVES: With rapidly increasing numbers of publications, assessments of study quality, reporting quality, and classification of studies according to their level of evidence or developmental stage have become key issues in weighing the relevance of new information reported. Diagnostic marker studies are often criticized for yielding highly discrepant and even controversial results. Much of this discrepancy has been attributed to differences in study quality. So far, numerous tools for measuring study quality have been developed, but few of them have been used for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. This is owing to the fact that most tools are complicated and time consuming, suffer from poor reproducibility, and do not permit quantitative scoring. METHODS: The International Bladder Cancer Network (IBCN) has adopted this problem and has systematically identified the more commonly used tools developed since 2000. RESULTS: In this review, those tools addressing study quality (Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale), reporting quality (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy), and developmental stage (IBCN phases) of studies on diagnostic markers in bladder cancer are introduced and critically analyzed. Based upon this, the IBCN has launched an initiative to assess and validate existing tools with emphasis on diagnostic bladder cancer studies. CONCLUSIONS: The development of simple and reproducible tools for quality assessment of diagnostic marker studies permitting quantitative scoring is suggested.
Authors: William Hollingworth; L Santiago Medina; Robert E Lenkinski; Dean K Shibata; Byron Bernal; David Zurakowski; Bryan Comstock; Jeffrey G Jarvik Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Maria Regina Fernandes de Oliveira; Almério de Castro Gomes; Cristiana Maria Toscano Journal: Rev Saude Publica Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 2.106
Authors: R Beynon; J Hawkins; R Laing; N Higgins; P Whiting; C Jameson; J A C Sterne; P Vergara; W Hollingworth Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; Jeroen G Lijmer; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Nynke Smidt; Anne W S Rutjes; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C w de Vet Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2006-03-15 Impact factor: 4.615