Chapter 5: Assessing risk of bias as a domain of quality in medical test studies

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Volumn 27, Issue SUPPL.1, 2012, Pages

  Santaguida, P Lina ^a   Riley, Crystal M ^b,d   Matchar, David B ^c,d  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d DUKE NUS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Singapore)

Author keywords

medical test; review; risk of bias; systematic error

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; MEDICAL TEST; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); VALIDATION PROCESS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84862676734     PISSN: 08848734     EISSN: 15251497     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-012-2030-8     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available at: http://www.effectivehealthcare. ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction= displayproduct&productid=318. Accessed September 20, 2010.
2. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and the Cochrane Bias Methods Group. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed September 19, 2011.
3. P Whiting AWS Rutjes JB Reitsma, et al. 2004 Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review Ann Intern Med 140 3 189 202 14757617
4. P Whiting AWS Rutjes J Dinnes, et al. 2005 A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools J Clin Epidemiol 58 1 12 15649665 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.04.008
5. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Dinnes J, et al. Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(25):iii, 1-234.
6. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PMM, 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.
7. MMG Leeflang JJ Deeks C Gatsonis PMM Bossuyt 2008 on behalf of the Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy Ann Intern Med 149 12 889 97 19075208
8. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: York, UK; 2009. Available at: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/Systematic- Reviews.pdf. Accessed September 19, 2011.
9. West S, King V, Carey TS, et al. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute - University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0011.) AHRQ Publication No. 02-E016. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. April 2002. Available at: http://www.thecre.com/pdf/ahrq- system-strength.pdf. Accessed September 19, 2011.
10. Cochrane Methods Working Group on Systematic Review of Screening and Diagnostic Tests. Recommended Methods; 1996.
11. JG Lijmer BW Mol S Heisterkamp, et al. 1999 Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests JAMA 282 11 1061 6 10493205 10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 1:STN:280:DyaK1MvitV2nug%3D%3D
12. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). How to Review the Evidence: Systematic Identification and Review of the Scientific Literature. Canberra: NHMRC; 2000.
13. Whiting P, Rutjes A, Sterne J, et al. QUADAS-2. (Prepared by the QUADAS-2 Steering Group and Advisory Group). Available at: http://www.bris.ac.uk/quadas/ resources/quadas2.pdf. Accessed September 12, 2011.
14. PM Bossuyt JB Reitsma DE Bruns, et al. 2003 Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative Ann Intern Med 138 1 40 4 12513043
15. J Little JPT Higgins JPA Ioannidis, et al. 2009 STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) - an extension of the STROBE statement Eur J Clin Invest 39 247 66 19297801 10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02125.x
16. E von Elm DG Altman M Egger, et al. 2007 The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies Lancet 370 1453 7 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X
17. Qureshi N, Wilson B, Santaguida P, et al. Family History and Improving Health. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 186. (Prepared by the McMaster University Evidence-based Practice Center, under Contract No. HHSA 290-2007-10060-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 09-E016. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. August 2009. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/ downloads/pub/evidence/ pdf/famhistory/famhimp.pdf. Accessed February 28, 2011.
18. BJ Wilson N Qureshi P Santaguida, et al. 2009 Systematic review: family history in risk assessment for common diseases Ann Intern Med 151 12 878 85 19884616