Performance of search strategies to retrieve systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy from the Cochrane Library

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuansheng Huang ◽  
Zhirong Yang ◽  
Jing Wang ◽  
Lin Zhuo ◽  
Zhixia Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategies ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
The Cochrane Library

scholarly journals Endometrial sampling tests for the diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma: a protocol of a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashraf Fawzy Nabhan
Keyword(s):  
Endometrial Carcinoma ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Gynecological Cancer ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Endometrial Sampling ◽  
Future Studies ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
Improve Patient

Background: Endometrial cancer ranks as the most common gynecological cancer. An accurate detection can dramatically improve patient relevant outcomes.Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of different endometrial sampling methods for detecting endometrial carcinoma and its precursors.Search strategy: we will search the Cochrane library, Pubmed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus. We will search references of relevant studies.Selection criteria: We will include diagnostic test accuracy studies if women had an endometrial sampling followed by verification with histopathology in hysterectomy specimens. The primary target is endometrial carcinoma.Data collection and analysis: Two authors will independently screen studies, extract data, and assess methodological quality. We will use bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis.Results: This is a protocol of a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review.Conclusions: Evidence will aid in making well-informed decisions for diagnosing endometrial carcinoma. Implications for research will be outlined for future studies.

Determining qualitative effect size ratings using a likelihood ratio scatter matrix in diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews

Diagnosis ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 205-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew L. Rubinstein ◽  
Colleen S. Kraft ◽  
J. Scott Parrott
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Quality And Safety ◽  
Scatter Matrix ◽  
Diagnostic Quality ◽  
Qualitative Effect

AbstractBackgroundDiagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews (SRs) characterize a test’s potential for diagnostic quality and safety. However, interpreting DTA measures in the context of SRs is challenging. Further, some evidence grading methods (e.g. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Laboratory Systems Laboratory Medicine Best Practices method) require determination of qualitative effect size ratings as a contributor to practice recommendations. This paper describes a recently developed effect size rating approach for assessing a DTA evidence base.MethodsA likelihood ratio scatter matrix will plot positive and negative likelihood ratio pairings for DTA studies. Pairings are graphed as single point estimates with confidence intervals, positioned in one of four quadrants derived from established thresholds for test clinical validity. These quadrants support defensible judgments on “substantial”, “moderate”, or “minimal” effect size ratings for each plotted study. The approach is flexible in relation to a priori determinations of the relative clinical importance of false positive and false negative test results.Results and conclusionsThis qualitative effect size rating approach was operationalized in a recent SR that assessed effectiveness of test practices for the diagnosis ofClostridium difficile. Relevance of this approach to other methods of grading evidence, and efforts to measure diagnostic quality and safety are described. Limitations of the approach arise from understanding that a diagnostic test is not an isolated element in the diagnostic process, but provides information in clinical context towards diagnostic quality and safety.

Chapter 9: Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Reviews

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jared Campbell ◽  
Miloslav Klugar ◽  
Sandrine Ding ◽  
Dennis Carmody ◽  
Sasja Hakonsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy

scholarly journals Updating Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Reviews: Which, When, and How Should They Be Updated?

2018 ◽  
pp. 205-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ersilia Lucenteforte ◽  
Alessandra Bettiol ◽  
Salvatore De Masi ◽  
Gianni Virgili
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy

Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Based on the PRISMA-DTA Reporting Guideline

2019 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Paul Salameh ◽  
Matthew D F McInnes ◽  
David Moher ◽  
Brett D Thombs ◽  
Trevor A McGrath ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Time ◽  
Abstract Word ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Index Test ◽  
Word Count ◽  
Supplementary Material ◽  
Completeness Of Reporting

Abstract BACKGROUND We evaluated the completeness of reporting of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews using the recently developed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA)-DTA guidelines. METHODS MEDLINE® was searched for DTA systematic reviews published October 2017 to January 2018. The search time span was modulated to reach the desired sample size of 100 systematic reviews. Reporting on a per-item basis using PRISMA-DTA was evaluated. RESULTS One hundred reviews were included. Mean reported items were 18.6 of 26 (71%; SD = 1.9) for PRISMA-DTA and 5.5 of 11 (50%; SD = 1.2) for PRISMA-DTA for abstracts. Items in the results were frequently reported. Items related to protocol registration, characteristics of included studies, results synthesis, and definitions used in data extraction were infrequently reported. Infrequently reported items from PRISMA-DTA for abstracts included funding information, strengths and limitations, characteristics of included studies, and assessment of applicability. Reporting completeness was higher in higher impact factor journals (18.9 vs 18.1 items; P = 0.04), studies that cited PRISMA (18.9 vs 17.7 items; P = 0.003), or used supplementary material (19.1 vs 18.0 items; P = 0.004). Variability in reporting was associated with author country (P = 0.04) but not journal (P = 0.6), abstract word count limitations (P = 0.9), PRISMA adoption (P = 0.2), structured abstracts (P = 0.2), study design (P = 0.8), subspecialty area (P = 0.09), or index test (P = 0.5). Abstracts with a higher word count were more informative (R = 0.4; P < 0.001). No association with word counts was observed for full-text reports (R = −0.03; P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS Recently published reports of DTA systematic reviews are not fully informative when evaluated against the PRISMA-DTA guidelines. These results should guide knowledge translation strategies, including journal level (e.g., PRISMA-DTA adoption, increased abstract word count, and use of supplementary material) and author level (PRISMA-DTA citation awareness) strategies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document