Evidence-based Radiology: Step 3-Diagnostic Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (Critical Appraisal)

Seminars in Roentgenology

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 170-179

  Dwamena, Ben A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS; PREDICTIVE VALIDITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PUBLISHING; RADIOLOGY; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

BAYES THEOREM; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROBABILITY; PUBLICATION BIAS; RADIOLOGY; REFERENCE STANDARDS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 65749108119     PISSN: 0037198X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/j.ro.2009.03.007     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Leeflang M., Deeks J., Gatsonis C., et al. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med 149 (2008) 889-897
2. Bachmann L.M., Coray R., Estermann P., et al. Identifying diagnostic studies in MEDLINE: reducing the number needed to read. J Am Med Inform Assoc 9 (2002) 653-658
3. Haynes R., and Wilczynski N. Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of diagnosis from MEDLINE: Analytical survey. BMJ 328 (2004) 1040
4. Doust J., Pietrzak E., Sanders S., et al. Identifying studies for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests was difficult due to the poor sensitivity and precision of methodologic filters and the lack of information in the abstract. J Clin Epidemiol 58 (2005) 444-449
5. Leeflang M., Scholten R., Rutjes A., et al. Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies. J Clin Epidemiol 59 (2006) 234-240
6. Whiting P., Rutjes A., Reitsma J., et al. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 140 (2004) 189-202
7. Whiting P., Rutjes A.W.S., Reitsma J.B., et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 3 (2003) 25
8. Whiting P., Rutjes A.W.S., Dinnes J., et al. Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technol Assess 8 (2004) iii1-iii234
9. Lijmer J.G., Bossuyt P.M., and Heisterkamp S.H. Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 21 (2002) 1525-1537
10. Deeks J.J., Macaskill P., and Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 58 (2005) 882-893
11. Alderson P., Green S., and Higgins J.P. Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.2.2. The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 (2004), John Wiley & Sons, Bloomfield, UK
12. Richardson W.S.M., Wilson M.C.M., Nishikawa J.M., et al. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 123 (1995) A12-A13
13. Bossuyt P.M., Reitsma J.B., Bruns D.E., et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative. Ann Intern Med 138 (2003) 40-44
14. Glasziou P. Which methods for bedside Bayes?. ACP J Club 135 (2001) A11-A12
15. Hopewell S., Clarke M., Stewart L., et al. Time to publication for results of clinical trials. The Cochrane Library no 4 (2003), Cochrane Library, Chinchester, UK
16. Simes R.J. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 4 (1986) 1529-1541
17. Lijmer J.G., Mol B.W., Heisterkamp S., et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. [Comment] [erratum appears in, JAMA 283:1963, 2000]. JAMA 282 (1999) 1061-1066
18. British Library Net. http://www.britishlibrary.net/medicine.html
19. United States National Library of Medicine: GATEWAY. http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/gw/Cmd
20. Deville W.L., and Buntinx F. Guidelines for conducting systematic reviews of studies evaluating the accuracy of diagnostic tests. In: Knottnerus J.A. (Ed). The Evidence Base of Clinical Diagnosis (2002), BMJ Books Publishing, London, UK 145-166
21. Deville W.L., Buntinx F., Bouter L.M., et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol 2 (2002) 9-10
22. Richie G., Glanville T., and Lefebvre C. Do published search filters to identify diagnostic test accuracy studies perform adequately?. Health Info Libr J 24 (2007) 188-192
23. Bayliss S.E., and Davenport C. Locating systematic reviews of test accuracy studies: how five specialist review databases measure up. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24 (2008) 403-411
24. Egger M., Smith G.D., and Phillips A.N. Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ 315 (1997) 1533-1537
25. Whiting P., Harbord R., and Kleijnen J. No role for quality scores in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 5 (2005) 19
26. Whiting P.F., Weswood M.E., Rutjes A.W.S., et al. Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 6 (2006) 9
27. Moses L.E., Shapiro D., and Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med 12 (1993) 1293-1316
28. Littenberg B., and Moses L.E. Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conflicting reports: a new meta-analytic method. Med Decis Mak 13 (1993) 313-321
29. Arends L.R., Hamza T.H., Houwelingen J.C., et al. Bivariate random effects Meta-analysis of ROC curves. Med Decis Mak 28 (2008) 621-628
30. Rutter C.M., and Gatsonis C.A. Regression methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic test data. Acad Radiol 2 suppl 1 (1995) S48-S56
31. Rutter C.M., and Gatsonis C.A. A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med 20 (2001) 2865-2884
32. Macaskill P. Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 57 (2004) 925-932
33. Reitsma J.B., Glas A.S., Rutjes A.W.S., et al. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 58 (2005) 982-990
34. Riley R.D., Abrams K.R., Lambert P.C., et al. An evaluation of bivariate random-effects meta-analysis for the joint synthesis of two correlated outcomes. Stat Med 26 (2007) 78-97
35. Riley R.D., Abrams K.R., Sutton A.J., et al. Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and the estimation of between-study correlation. BMC Med Res Methodol 7 (2007) 3
36. Riley R.D., Thompson J.R., and Abrams K.R. An alternative model for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis when the within-study correlations are unknown. Biostatistics 9 (2008) 172-186
37. Chu H., and Cole S.R. Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach. J Clin Epidemiol 59 (2006) 1331-1332
38. Harbord R.M., Deeks J.J., Egger M., et al. A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics 8 (2007) 239-251
39. van Houwelingen H.C., Zwinderman K.H., and Stijnen T. A bivariate approach to meta-analysis. Stat Med 12 (1993) 2273-2284
40. van Houwelingen H.C., Arends L.R., and Stijnen T. Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med 21 (2002) 589-624
41. Rabe-Hesketh S. GLLAMM manual. Working Paper Number 160 (2004), Division of Biostatistics, University of California-Berkeley
42. Rabe-Hesketh S., Skrondal A., and Pickles A. Reliable estimation of generalized linear mixed models using adaptive quadrature. Stata J 2 (2002) 1-21
43. Swets J.A. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240 (1988) 1285-1293
44. Higgins J.P.T., and Thompson S.G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21 (2002) 1539-1558
45. Light L., and Pillemer D. Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing research (1984), Harvard University Publishing, Cambridge, MA
46. Begg C.B., and Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50 (1994) 1088-1101
47. Egger M., and Smith G.D. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ 316 (1998) 61-66
48. Harbord R.M., Egger M., and Sterne J.A.C. A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med 25 (2006) 3443-3457
49. Macaskill P., Walter S.D., and Irwig L. A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. Stat Med 20 (2001) 641-654
50. Peters J.L., Sutton A.J., Jones D.R., et al. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA 295 (2006) 676-680
51. Rucker G., Schwarzer G., and Carpenter J. Arcsine test for publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes. Stat Med 27 (2008) 746-763
52. Schwarzer G. A test for publication bias in meta-analysis with sparse binary data. Stat Med 26 (2007) 721-733
53. Schwarzer G., Antes G., and Schumacher M. Inflation of type I error rate in two statistical tests for the detection of publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes. Stat Med 21 (2002) 2465-2477
54. Song F., Khan K.S., Dinnes J., et al. Asymmetric funnel plots and publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy. Int J Epidemiol 31 (2002) 88-95
55. Fagan T.J. Letter: Nomogram for Bayes theorem. N Engl J Med 293 (1975) 257
56. Stengel D., Bauwens K., Sehouli J., et al. A likelihood ratio approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic studies. J Med Screen 10 (2003) 47-51
57. Li J., Fine J., and Safdar N. Prevalence-dependent diagnostic accuracy measures. Stat Med 26 (2007) 3258-3273