Methods specification for diagnostic test accuracy studies in fine-needle aspiration cytology: A survey of reporting practice

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 137, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 132-141

  Schmidt, Robert L ^a   Factor, Rachel E ^a,b   Affolter, Kajsa E ^a   Cook, Joshua B ^a   Hall, Brian J ^a   Narra, Krishna K ^a   Witt, Benjamin L ^a   Wilson, Andrew R ^b   Layfield, Lester J ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b ARUP LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

Cytology; Diagnostic accuracy studies; Diagnostic testing; Fine needle aspiration; Reporting quality; Test conditions; Test methods; Test parameters; Test performance variation

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS; ARTICLE; ASPIRATION BIOPSY; ASPIRATION CYTOLOGY; CHECKLIST; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FINE NEEDLE ASPIRATION CYTOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARDIZATION; VALIDITY;

BIOPSY, FINE-NEEDLE; CHECKLIST; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; HUMANS; MEDICAL AUDIT; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SPECIMEN HANDLING;

EID: 84855281819     PISSN: 00029173     EISSN: 19437722     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1309/AJCPQX1KBJ2PZJFK     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Smidt N, Rutjes AWS, van der Windt DAWM, et al. The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement: has it improved? Neurology. 2006;67:792-797. (Pubitemid 44394191)
2. Smidt N, Rutjes AWS, van der Windt DAWM, et al. Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology. 2005;235:347-353. (Pubitemid 40571066)
3. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Dinnes J, et al. A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:1-12. (Pubitemid 40093107)
4. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests [published correction appears in JAMA. 2000;283:1963]. JAMA. 1999;282:1061-1066. (Pubitemid 29436454)
5. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, et al. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:189-202. (Pubitemid 38155650)
6. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al.; for the STARD group. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Clin Chem. 2003;49:1-6. (Pubitemid 36078546)
7. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem. 2003;49:7-18. (Pubitemid 36078547)
8. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, 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. 2003;3:25. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25.
9. Whiting PF, Weswood ME, Rutjes AWS, et al. Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:9. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-9.
10. Lucas NP, Macaskill P, Irwig L, et al. The development of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL). J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:854-861.
11. Schmidt RL, Hall BJ, Wilson AR, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration cytology for parotid gland lesions. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;136:45-59.
12. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174. (Pubitemid 8054849)
13. Brazma A, Hingamp P, Quackenbush J, et al. Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME): toward standards for microarray data. Nat Genet. 2001;29:365-371. (Pubitemid 34326681)
14. Stewart LA, Tierney JF. To IPD or not to IPD? advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25:76-97. (Pubitemid 34157785)
15. Simmonds MC, Higgins JPT. Covariate heterogeneity in meta-analysis: criteria for deciding between meta-regression and individual patient data. Stat Med. 2007;26:2982-2999. (Pubitemid 46939422)