Gabriela Spencer-Bonilla1,2, Naykky Singh Ospina1,3, Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez1,4, Juan P Brito1,5, Nicole Iñiguez-Ariza5, Shrikant Tamhane1,5, Patricia J Erwin6, M Hassan Murad1,7, Victor M Montori8,9. 1. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 2. School of Medicine, University of Puerto Rico Medical Sciences Campus, San Juan, PR, USA. 3. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 4. Division of Endocrinology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital "Dr. Jose E. Gonzalez", Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, MX, USA. 5. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism, and Nutrition, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 6. Mayo Medical Library, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 7. Division of Preventive, Occupational, and Aerospace Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 8. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. montori.victor@mayo.edu. 9. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism, and Nutrition, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. montori.victor@mayo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews provide clinicians and policymakers estimates of diagnostic test accuracy and their usefulness in clinical practice. We identified all available systematic reviews of diagnosis in endocrinology, summarized the diagnostic accuracy of the tests included, and assessed the credibility and clinical usefulness of the methods and reporting. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to December 2015 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting accuracy measures of diagnostic tests in endocrinology. Experienced reviewers independently screened for eligible studies and collected data. We summarized the results, methods, and reporting of the reviews. We performed subgroup analyses to categorize diagnostic tests as most useful based on their accuracy. RESULTS: We identified 84 systematic reviews; half of the tests included were classified as helpful when positive, one-fourth as helpful when negative. Most authors adequately reported how studies were identified and selected and how their trustworthiness (risk of bias) was judged. Only one in three reviews, however, reported an overall judgment about trustworthiness and one in five reported using adequate meta-analytic methods. One in four reported contacting authors for further information and about half included only patients with diagnostic uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Up to half of the diagnostic endocrine tests in which the likelihood ratio was calculated or provided are likely to be helpful in practice when positive as are one-quarter when negative. Most diagnostic systematic reviews in endocrine lack methodological rigor, protection against bias, and offer limited credibility. Substantial efforts, therefore, seem necessary to improve the quality of diagnostic systematic reviews in endocrinology.
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews provide clinicians and policymakers estimates of diagnostic test accuracy and their usefulness in clinical practice. We identified all available systematic reviews of diagnosis in endocrinology, summarized the diagnostic accuracy of the tests included, and assessed the credibility and clinical usefulness of the methods and reporting. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to December 2015 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting accuracy measures of diagnostic tests in endocrinology. Experienced reviewers independently screened for eligible studies and collected data. We summarized the results, methods, and reporting of the reviews. We performed subgroup analyses to categorize diagnostic tests as most useful based on their accuracy. RESULTS: We identified 84 systematic reviews; half of the tests included were classified as helpful when positive, one-fourth as helpful when negative. Most authors adequately reported how studies were identified and selected and how their trustworthiness (risk of bias) was judged. Only one in three reviews, however, reported an overall judgment about trustworthiness and one in five reported using adequate meta-analytic methods. One in four reported contacting authors for further information and about half included only patients with diagnostic uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Up to half of the diagnostic endocrine tests in which the likelihood ratio was calculated or provided are likely to be helpful in practice when positive as are one-quarter when negative. Most diagnostic systematic reviews in endocrine lack methodological rigor, protection against bias, and offer limited credibility. Substantial efforts, therefore, seem necessary to improve the quality of diagnostic systematic reviews in endocrinology.
Authors: J G Lijmer; B W Mol; S Heisterkamp; G J Bonsel; M H Prins; J H van der Meulen; P M Bossuyt Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-09-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Thomas McGinn; Peter C Wyer; Thomas B Newman; Sheri Keitz; Rosanne Leipzig; Gordon Guyatt For Journal: CMAJ Date: 2004-11-23 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Martin Gotthardt; Bodo Lohmann; Thomas M Behr; Artur Bauhofer; Christiane Franzius; Meike L Schipper; Maria Wagner; Helmut Höffken; Helmut Sitter; Matthias Rothmund; Klaus Joseph; Christoph Nies Journal: World J Surg Date: 2003-11-26 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: C F A Eustatia-Rutten; J W A Smit; J A Romijn; E P M van der Kleij-Corssmit; A M Pereira; M P Stokkel; J Kievit Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 3.478
Authors: Lucas M Bachmann; Dominique B Bischof; Stephan A Bischofberger; Marco G Bonani; Franziska M Osann; Johann Steurer Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2002-04-10 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Walter L Devillé; Frank Buntinx; Lex M Bouter; Victor M Montori; Henrica C W de Vet; Danielle A W M van der Windt; P Dick Bezemer Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2002-07-03 Impact factor: 4.615