Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: Review of methods and reporting

British Medical Journal

Volumn 333, Issue 7565, 2006, Pages 413-416

  Mallett, Susan ^a   Deeks, Jonathan ^b   Halligan, Steve ^d   Hopewell, Sally ^c   Cornelius, Victoria ^e   Altman, Douglas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^c UK COCHRANE CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e DRUG SAFETY RESEARCH UNIT   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER RECURRENCE; CLINICAL TRIAL; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DISEASE SEVERITY; EMBASE; HUMAN; MEDLINE; METASTASIS; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS; NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; REVIEW LITERATURE;

EID: 33748281730     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38895.467130.55     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994;309:597-9.
2. Decks JJ. Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ 2001;323:157-62.
3. Tatsioni A, Zarin DA, Aronson N, Samson DJ, Flamm CR, Schmid C, et al. Challenges in systematic reviews of diagnostic technologies. Ann Intern Med 2005;142:1048-55.
4. Begg CB. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 1987;6:411-23.
5. Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kirby J, Roderick P. A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Health Technol Assess 2005;9:1-128.
6. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Botisel GJ, Prins MH, van der Meulen JH, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 1999;282:1061-6.
7. Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Di Nisio M, Smidt N, van Rijn JC, Bossuyt PM. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. CMAJ 2006;174:469-76.
8. Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, Lau J, Colditz G, Chalmers TC, et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med 1994;120:667-76.
9. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Dinnes J, Reilsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:1-12.
10. Arroll B, Schechter MT, Sheps SB. The assessment of diagnostic tests: a comparison of medical literature in 1982 and 1985. J Gen Intern Med 1988;3:443-7.
11. Sheps SB, Schechler MT. The assessment of diagnostic tests. A survey of current medical research. JAMA 1984;252:2418-22.
12. Deville WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, Montori VM, de Vet HC, van der Windt DA, et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol 2002;2:9.
13. Bossuyt PM, ReitsmaJB, Bruns DE, Galsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:W1-12.
14. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354:1896-900.
15. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25.
16. Gould MK, Maclean CC, Kuschner WG, Rydzak CE, Owens DK. Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2001;285:914-24.
17. Harris KM, Kelly S, Berry E, Hutton J, Roderick P, Cullmgworth J, et al. Systematic review of endoscopic ultrasound in gastro-oesophageal cancer. Health Technol Assess 1998;2:1-134.
18. Decks J, Gatsoiiis C, Bossuyt P, Antes G. Cochrane reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Cochrane News 2004;31;Aug 2004. www.cochrane.org/newslett/ ccnews31-lowres.pdf (accessed 31 May 2006).