Incorporating quality assessments of primary studies in the conclusions of diagnostic accuracy reviews: A cross-sectional study

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Ochodo, Eleanor A ^a,d   Van Enst, Wynanda A ^a,b   Naaktgeboren, Christiana A ^c   De Groot, Joris A H ^c   Hooft, Lotty ^a,b   Moons, Karel G M ^c   Reitsma, Johannes B ^c   Bossuyt, Patrick M ^a   Leeflang, Mariska M G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Diagnostic tests; Meta analysis; QUADAS; Quality; Risk of bias; Systematic reviews; Test accuracy

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; DIAGNOSTIC TESTS, ROUTINE; HUMANS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RESEARCH DESIGN; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84897673776     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-33     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews Rockville, MD: AHRQ Publication No.12-EC017 2012
2. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, Bossuyt PM, Ann Intern Med 2008 149 12 889 897 10.7326/0003-4819- 149-12-200812160-00008 19075208
3. Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 The Cochrane Collaboration, Higgins JPT, Green S, 2011
4. Chapter9: assessing methodological quality. Reitsma J, Rutjes A, Whiting P, Vlassov VV, Leeflang M, Deeks J, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Acuracy. Version 1.0.0 The Cochrane Collaboration, Deeks J, Bossuyt P, Gatsonis C, 2009
5. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J, Ann Intern Med 2004 140 3 189 202 10.7326/0003-4819-140-3-200402030- 00010 14757617
6. A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, J Clin Epidemiol 2013 66 10 1093 1104 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.014 23958378
7. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC, Ann Intern Med 2003 138 1 40 44 10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00010 12513043
8. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC, Lijmer JG, Ann Intern Med 2003 138 1 1 W12 10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00012-w1 12513067
9. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, van der Meulen JH, Bossuyt PM, JAMA 1999 282 1061 1066 10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 10493205
10. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J, BMC Med Res Methodol 2003 3 25 10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 14606960
11. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MM, Sterne JA, Bossuyt PM, Ann Intern Med 2011 155 529 536 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 22007046
12. Uptake of newer methodological developments and the deployment of meta-analysis in diagnostic test research: a systematic review. Willis BH, Quigley M, BMC Med Res Methodol 2011 11 27 10.1186/1471-2288-11-27 21401947
13. Dahabreh IJ, Chung M, Kitsios GD, Terasawa T, Raman G, Tatsioni A, Tobar A, Lau J, Trikalinos TA, Schimd CH, Comprehensive Overview of Methods and Reporting of Meta-Analyses of Test Accuracy Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: AHRQ, Rockville, MD Methods Research Report. 2012
14. Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. Moja LP, Telaro E, D'Amico R, Moschetti I, Coe L, Liberati A, BMJ 2005 330 7499 1053 10.1136/bmj.38414.515938.8F 15817526
15. Incorporation of assessments of risk of bias of primary studies in systematic reviews of randomised trials: a cross-sectional study. Hopewell S, Boutron I, Altman DG, Ravaud P, BMJ Open 2013 3 8 003342 23975265
16. A qualitative study into the difficulties experienced by healthcare decision makers when reading a Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy review. Zhelev Z, Garside R, Hyde C, Syst Rev 2013 2 32 10.1186/2046-4053-2-32 23680077
17. PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Bastian H, Chalmers I, Gotzsche PC, Lasseson T, Tovey D, PLoS Med 2013 10 4 1001419 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419 23585737
18. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG, JAMA 2010 303 20 2058 2064 10.1001/jama.2010.651 20501928
19. Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: a cohort study. Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Bafeta A, Marroun I, Charles P, Mantz J, Ravaud P, PLoS Med 2012 9 9 1001308 10.1371/journal.pmed. 1001308 22984354
20. Accuracy of colposcopic directed punch biopsies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Underwood M, Arbyn M, Parry-Smith WP, Bellis-Ayres S, Todd R, Redman CWE, BJOG 2012 119 1293 1301 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03444.x 22882742
21. Diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks: an update of the assessment of evidence. Atluri S, Singh V, Datta S, Geffert S, Sehgal N, Falco FJE, Pain Physician 2012 15 483 e496 22828695
22. Diagnosis of the condition of the dental pulp: a systematic review. Mejare IA, Axelsson S, Davidson T, Frisk F, Hakeberg M, Kvist T, Norlund A, Petersson A, Portenier I, Sandberg H, Tranaeus S, Bergenholtz G, Int Endod J 2012 45 7 597 613 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02016.x 22329525
23. Diagnostics of femoroacetabular impingement and labral pathology of the hip: a systematic review of the accuracy and validity of physical tests. Tijssen M, van Cingel R, Willemsen L, de Visser E, Arthroscopy 2012 28 6 860 871 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.12.004 22365268
24. Best tests/clinical findings for screening and diagnosis of patellofemoral pain syndrome: a systematic review. Cook C, Mabry L, Reima M, Hegedus EJ, Physiotherapy 2012 98 93 100 10.1016/j.physio.2011.09.001 22507358
25. Rapid and effective diagnosis of tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance with Xpert MTB/RIF assay: a meta-analysis. Chang K, Lu W, Wang J, Zhang K, Jia S, Li F, Deng S, Chen M, J Infect 2012 64 6 580 588 10.1016/j.jinf.2012.02.012 22381459
26. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesion: a systematic review. Chen J, Yang R, Lu Y, Xia Y, Zhou H, J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2012 138 9 1433 1441 10.1007/s00432-012-1268-1 22752601
27. Accuracy of imaging parameters in the prediction of lethal pulmonary hypoplasia secondary to mid-trimester prelabor rupture of fetal membranes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. van Teeffelen AS, Van Der Heijden J, Oei SG, Porath MM, Willekes C, Opmeer B, Mol BW, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012 39 5 495 499 10.1002/uog.10047 21793083
28. Diagnostic value of serum human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) in ovarian carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Wu L, Dai ZY, Qian YH, Shi Y, Liu FJ, Yang C, Int J Gynecol Cancer 2012 22 7 1106 1112 10.1097/IGC. 0b013e318263efa2 22854652
29. 18 F-FDG PET or PET/CT for detecting extrahepatic metastases or recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lin CY, Chen JH, Liang JA, Lin CC, Jeng LB, Kao CH, Eur J Radiol 2012 81 9 2417 2422 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.08.004 21899970
30. The clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging in diagnosing prostate carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Wu L-M, Xu J-R, Ye Y-Q, Lu Q, Hu J-N, Am J Roentgenol 2012 199 1 103 110 10.2214/AJR.11.7634
31. The clinical utility and diagnostic performance of MRI for identification and classification of knee osteochondritis dissecans. Quatman CE, Quatman-Yates CC, Schmitt LC, Paterno MV, J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012 94 1036 1044 22637210
32. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance arthrography for triangular fibrocartilaginous complex injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Smith TO, Drew B, Toms AP, Jerosch-Herold C, Chojnowski AJ, J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012 94 9 824 832 22552672
33. Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of "spin" Ochodo EA, de Haan MC, Reitsma JB, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM, Leeflang MM, Radiology 2013 267 2 581 588 10.1148/radiol.12120527 23360738
34. A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Dinnes J, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J, J Clin Epidemiol 2005 58 1 1 12 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004. 04.008 15649665
35. Chapter 10: analysing and presenting results. Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks JJ, Harbord R, Takwoingi Y, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Version 1.0. 1 The Cochrane Collaboration, Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, 2010
36. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PLoS Med 2009 6 7 1000097 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 19621072
37. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM, BMC Med Res Methodol 2007 7 10 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10 17302989
38. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: Part 2 of 3. The GRADE approach to grading quality of evidence about diagnostic tests and strategies. Brozek JL, Akl EA, Jaeschke R, Lang DM, Bossuyt P, Glasziou P, Helfand M, Ueffing E, Alonso-Coello P, Meerpohl J, Phillips B, Harvath AR, Bousquet J, Guyatt GH, Schünemann HJ, Allergy 2009 64 8 1109 1116 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02083.x 19489757
39. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, BMJ 2008 336 7650 924 926 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD 18436948
40. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M, JAMA 1999 282 11 1054 1060 10.1001/jama.282.11.1054 10493204
41. No role for quality scores in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. Whiting P, Harbord R, Kleijnen J, BMC Med Res Methodol 2005 5 19 10.1186/1471-2288-5-19 15918898