scholarly journals Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor A. McGrath ◽  
Mostafa Alabousi ◽  
Becky Skidmore ◽  
Daniël A. Korevaar ◽  
Patrick M. M. Bossuyt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals Measuring the impact of screening automation on meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Norman ◽  
Mariska M. G. Leeflang ◽  
Raphaël Porcher ◽  
Aurélie Névéol
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Estimation Error ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background The large and increasing number of new studies published each year is making literature identification in systematic reviews ever more time-consuming and costly. Technological assistance has been suggested as an alternative to the conventional, manual study identification to mitigate the cost, but previous literature has mainly evaluated methods in terms of recall (search sensitivity) and workload reduction. There is a need to also evaluate whether screening prioritization methods leads to the same results and conclusions as exhaustive manual screening. In this study, we examined the impact of one screening prioritization method based on active learning on sensitivity and specificity estimates in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Methods We simulated the screening process in 48 Cochrane reviews of diagnostic test accuracy and re-run 400 meta-analyses based on a least 3 studies. We compared screening prioritization (with technological assistance) and screening in randomized order (standard practice without technology assistance). We examined if the screening could have been stopped before identifying all relevant studies while still producing reliable summary estimates. For all meta-analyses, we also examined the relationship between the number of relevant studies and the reliability of the final estimates. Results The main meta-analysis in each systematic review could have been performed after screening an average of 30% of the candidate articles (range 0.07 to 100%). No systematic review would have required screening more than 2308 studies, whereas manual screening would have required screening up to 43,363 studies. Despite an average 70% recall, the estimation error would have been 1.3% on average, compared to an average 2% estimation error expected when replicating summary estimate calculations. Conclusion Screening prioritization coupled with stopping criteria in diagnostic test accuracy reviews can reliably detect when the screening process has identified a sufficient number of studies to perform the main meta-analysis with an accuracy within pre-specified tolerance limits. However, many of the systematic reviews did not identify a sufficient number of studies that the meta-analyses were accurate within a 2% limit even with exhaustive manual screening, i.e., using current practice.

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy: The PRISMA-DTA Statement

Radiology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 289 (2) ◽  
pp. 313-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert A. Frank ◽  
Patrick M. Bossuyt ◽  
Matthew D. F. McInnes
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals How to do a systematic review

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 138-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Pollock ◽  
Eivind Berge
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Complex Interventions ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Definition Of

High quality up-to-date systematic reviews are essential in order to help healthcare practitioners and researchers keep up-to-date with a large and rapidly growing body of evidence. Systematic reviews answer pre-defined research questions using explicit, reproducible methods to identify, critically appraise and combine results of primary research studies. Key stages in the production of systematic reviews include clarification of aims and methods in a protocol, finding relevant research, collecting data, assessing study quality, synthesizing evidence, and interpreting findings. Systematic reviews may address different types of questions, such as questions about effectiveness of interventions, diagnostic test accuracy, prognosis, prevalence or incidence of disease, accuracy of measurement instruments, or qualitative data. For all reviews, it is important to define criteria such as the population, intervention, comparison and outcomes, and to identify potential risks of bias. Reviews of the effect of rehabilitation interventions or reviews of data from observational studies, diagnostic test accuracy, or qualitative data may be more methodologically challenging than reviews of effectiveness of drugs for the prevention or treatment of stroke. Challenges in reviews of stroke rehabilitation can include poor definition of complex interventions, use of outcome measures that have not been validated, and poor generalizability of results. There may also be challenges with bias because the effects are dependent on the persons delivering the intervention, and because masking of participants and investigators may not be possible. There are a wide range of resources which can support the planning and completion of systematic reviews, and these should be considered when planning a systematic review relating to stroke.

scholarly journals Protocol for a systematic review of the diagnostic test accuracy of tests for IgE-mediated food allergy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Genuneit ◽  
Sashini Jayasinghe ◽  
CARMEN RIGGIONI ◽  
Rachel Peters ◽  
Derek Chu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Food Allergy ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Index Test ◽  
Ige Mediated ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of updating the guidelines on the diagnosis and management of food allergy. The existing guidelines are based on a systematic review of the literature until 30th September 2012. Therefore, a new systematic review must be undertaken to inform the new guidelines. This systematic review aims to assess the accuracy of index tests to support the diagnosis of IgE-mediated food allergy. Methods: The databases Cochrane CENTRAL (Trials), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID) will be searched for diagnostic test accuracy studies from 1st October 2012 to 30th June 2021. Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be used to select appropriate studies. Data from these studies will be extracted and tabulated, and then reviewed for risk of bias and applicability using the QUADAS-2 tool. All evaluation will be done in duplicate. Studies with a high risk of bias and low applicability will be excluded. Meta-analysis will be performed if there are three or more studies of the same index test and food. Results: A protocol for the systematic review and meta-analyses is presented and was registered using Prospero prior to commencing the literature search. Discussion: Oral food challenges are the reference standard for diagnosis but involve considerable risks and resources. This protocol for systematic review aims to assess the accuracy of various tests to diagnose food allergy, which can be useful in both clinical and research settings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document