Methodological quality of test accuracy studies included in systematic reviews in obstetrics and gynaecology: Sources of bias

BMC Women's Health

Volumn 11, Issue , 2011, Pages

  Morris, Rachel K ^a   Selman, Tara J ^a   Zamora, Javier ^b   Khan, Khalid S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b HOSPITAL RAMÓN Y CAJAL   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; EXTERNAL BIAS; GYNECOLOGY; HUMAN; INTERNAL BIAS; METHODOLOGY; OBSTETRICS; QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY STUDIES; QUALITY CONTROL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SAMPLE SIZE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; FEMALE GENITAL TRACT TUMOR; GYNECOLOGICAL EXAMINATION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; STANDARD;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL; DIAGNOSTIC TESTS, ROUTINE; FEMALE; GENITAL NEOPLASMS, FEMALE; HUMANS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 79953085667     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726874     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6874-11-7     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Harry VN, Deans H, Ramage E, Parkin DE, Gilbert FJ. Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Gynecological Oncology. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 2009, 19(2). 10.1111/IGC.0b013e31819c52de, 19395992.
2. Tornc A, Puig-Tintoire L. The use of sentinel lymph nodes in gynecologocal malignancies. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004, 16(1):57-64. 10.1097/00001703-200402000-00011, 15128009.
3. Lai C, Yen T, Chang T. Positron emission tomography for gynecological malignancy. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2007, 19(1):37-41. 10.1097/GCO.0b013e32801195c9, 17218850.
4. Maulik D. Management of fetal growth restriction: an evidence based approach. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 2006, 49(2):320-334. 10.1097/00003081-200606000-00013, 16721110.
5. Selman T, Luesley D, Acheson N, Khan K, Mann C. A systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for inguinal lymph node status in vulval cancer. Gynecologic Oncology 2005, 99(1):206-214. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.05.029, 16081147.
6. Selman T, Mann C, Zamora J, Khan K. A systematic review of tests for lymph node status in primary endometrial cancer. BMC Women's Health 2008, 8(8).
7. Selman T, Zamora J, Mann C, Appleyard T, Khan K. Systematic review of diagnostic tests in cervical cancer. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2008, 178(7):855-862. 10.1503/cmaj.071124, 2267838, 18362381.
8. Morris RK, Cnossen J, Langejans M, Robson S, Kleijnen J, ter Riet G, Mol BW, van der Post JAM, Khan KS. Serum screening with Down's Syndrome markers to predict pre-eclampsia and small for gestational age: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2008, 8(1):33. 10.1186/1471-2393-8-33, 2533288, 18680570.
9. Cnossen J, Morris RK, Mol BW, ter RG, van der Post JAM, Coomarasamy A, Zwindermann AH, Bindels P, Robson SC, Kleijnen J, Khan KS. Uterine artery Doppler to predict pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction: a systematic review and bivariable meta-analysis. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2008, 178(6):701-711. 10.1503/cmaj.070430, 2263112, 18332385.
10. Deeks J, Morris J. Evaluating diagnostic tests. Baillieres Clinical Obsetrics and Gynaecology 1996, (10):613-630.
11. Honest H, Khan KS. Reporting of measures of accuracy in systematic reviews of diagnostic literature. BMC Health Services Research 2002, 2:4. 10.1186/1472-6963-2-4, 100326, 11884248.
12. Moher D. CONSORT: an evolving tool to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. JAMA 1998, 279:1489-91. 10.1001/jama.279.18.1489, 9600488.
13. Moher D, Cook D, 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(9193):1896-1900. 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5, 10584742.
14. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000, 283(15):2008-2012. 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008, 10789670.
15. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Annals of Internal Medicine 2003, 138(1):40-44.
16. 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 Medical Research Methodology 2003, 3:25. 10.1186/1471-2288-3-25, 305345, 14606960.
17. de Vet HC, van der WT, Muris JW, Heyrman J, Buntinx F, Knottnerus JA. Systematic reviews of diagnostic research. Considerations about assessment and incorporation of methodological quality. European Journal of Epidemiology 2001, 17(4):301-306. 10.1023/A:1012751326462, 11767953.
18. Khan KS. Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests: a guide to methods and application. Best Practice & Research in Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2005, 19(1):37-46.
19. Mann R, Hewitt C, Gilbody S. Assessing the quality of diagnostic studies using psychometric instruments: applying QUADAS. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2009, 44(4):300-307. 10.1007/s00127-008-0440-z, 18836883.
20. Westwood ME, Whiting P, Kleijnen J. How does study quality affect the results of a diagnostic meta-analysis. BMC Med Res.Methodol 2005, 5(1):20. 10.1186/1471-2288-5-20, 1180444, 15943861.
21. Stengel, Bauwens K, Rademacher G, Mutze S, Ekkernkamp A. Association between compliance with methodological standards of diagnostic research and reported test accuracy: meta-analysis of focused assessment of US for trauma. Radiology 2005, 236(1):102-111. 10.1148/radiol.2361040791, 15983072.
22. Sankey S, Weistfiels L, Fine M, Kapoor W. An assessment of the use of the continuity correction for sparse data in meta analysis. Commun Stat Simulation Computation 1996, 25:1031-1056.
23. Falagas M, Michalopoulos A, Bliziotis I, Sotereiades E. A bibliometric analysis by geographic area of published research in several biomedical fields, 1995-2003. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2006, 175(11):1389-1390. 10.1503/cmaj.060361, 1635765, 17116906.
24. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2003, 56(11):1129-35. 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00177-X, 14615004.
25. Sterne JA, Juni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, Egger M. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research. Stat Med 2002, 11(2):1524-1531.
26. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes R, Altman DG. Emperical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995, 273(408):412.
27. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet 2000, 352:1228-1231.
28. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook D, Jadad A, Moher M, Tugwell P, Klassen TP. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet 1998, 352:609-613. 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)01085-X, 9746022.
29. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, van der Meulen JH, Bossuyt PM. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 1999, 282(11):1061-1066. 10.1001/jama.282.11.1061, 10493205.