Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Diagnostic Meta-Analysis pp 77–91Cite as

Searching for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1640 Accesses

Abstract

Identifying diagnostic studies suitable for inclusion in a systematic review is a fundamental step to ensure the validity of the review findings in terms of minimising publication bias or similar threats to accuracy. Since there are no dedicated databases of diagnostic test accuracy studies, biomedical databases, such as MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase, should be searched as well as subject-specific databases and non-database resources.

The search should contain concepts for the index test and possibly the target condition. Search filters to identify diagnostic test accuracy studies are not recommended, except when used in multistranded searches.

Searching for studies is challenging and often complex and early collaboration with an information specialist is recommended to achieve searches that best reflect the review requirements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. EUnetHTA—European network for Health Technology Assessment. Process of information retrieval for systematic reviews and health technology assessments on clinical effectiveness. Belgium: European network for Health Technology Assessment; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Higgins J, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  3. Institute of Medicine. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Wang J, Leeflang MM, Bossuyt PM. Meta-epidemiologic study showed frequent time trends in summary estimates from meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;77:60–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Korevaar DA, van Es N, Zwinderman AH, Cohen JF, Bossuyt PM. Time to publication among completed diagnostic accuracy studies: associated with reported accuracy estimates. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:68.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beynon R, Leeflang MM, McDonald S, Eisinga A, Mitchell RL, Whiting P, Glanville JM. Search strategies to identify diagnostic accuracy studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2013;MR000022.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Leeflang MMG, Scholten RJ, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM. Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:234–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ritchie G, Glanville J, Lefebvre C. Do published search filters to identify diagnostic test accuracy studies perform adequately? Health Inf Libr J. 2007;24:188–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Whiting P, Westwood M, Beynon R, Burke M, Sterne JA, Glanville J. Inclusion of methodological filters in searches for diagnostic test accuracy studies misses relevant studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:602–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. de Vet HCW, Eisinga A, Riphagen II, Aertgeerts B, Pewsner D. Chapter 7: searching for studies. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy version 0.4 [updated September 2008]: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fraser C, Mowatt G, Siddiqui R, Burr J. Searching for diagnostic test accuracy studies: an application to screening for open angle glaucoma (OAG) [abstract]. XIV Cochrane Colloquium, 23–26 Oct 2006; Dublin, Ireland. p. 88.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Glanville J. Searching for diagnostic tests: which databases, which filters? Fourth Annual Meeting of Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi): Pushing the frontiers of information management; 2007; Barcelona, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Glanville J, Spijker R, Ormstad SS, Higgins C, Fitzgerald A. SuRe Info: diagnostic accuracy. HTAi Vortal. 2016. http://vortal.htai.org/?q=node/339. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  15. Whiting P, Westwood M, Burke M, Sterne J, Glanville J. Systematic reviews of test accuracy should search a range of databases to identify primary studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:357–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. van Enst WA, Scholten RJ, Whiting P, Zwinderman AH, Hooft L. Meta-epidemiologic analysis indicates that MEDLINE searches are sufficient for diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1192–9.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Preston L, Carroll C, Gardois P, Paisley S, Kaltenthaler E. Improving search efficiency for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy: an exploratory study to assess the viability of limiting to MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference checking. Syst Rev. 2015;4:82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Rice DB, Kloda LA, Levis B, Qi B, Kingsland E, Thombs BD. Are MEDLINE searches sufficient for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools? A review of meta-analyses. J Psychosom Res. 2016;87:7–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking systematic reviews in health care. In. York: University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2009. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/SysRev/!SSL!/WebHelp/SysRev3.htm. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  20. Devillé WL, Buntinx F. Guidelines for conducting systematic reviews of studies evaluating the accuracy of diagnostic tests. In: Knottnerus JA, editor. The evidence base of clinical diagnosis. London: BMJ Books; 2002. p. 145–65.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Devillé WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, Montori VM, de Vet HC, van der Windt DA, Bezemer PD. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002;2:9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. CADTH. Grey Matters: a practical tool for searching health-related grey literature. 2015. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH): Toronto. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/resources/finding-evidence/grey-matters. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  23. Giustini D. Finding the hard to finds: searching for grey literature (2012 update). 2012. http://www.slideshare.net/giustinid/finding-the-hard-to-finds-searching-for-grey-gray-literature-2010. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  24. Haddaway NR, Collins AM, Coughlin D, Kirk S. The role of Google scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0138237.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Haddaway NR, Collins AM, Coughlin D, Kohl C. Including non-public data and studies in systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ Int. 2016;99:351–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Korevaar DA, Bossuyt PMM, Hooft L. Infrequent and incomplete registration of test accuracy studies: analysis of recent study reports. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004596.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Whiting P, Westwood M, Bojke L, Palmer S, Richardson G, Cooper J, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tests for the diagnosis and investigation of urinary tract infection in children: a systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10:iii–v, xi–xiii, 1–154.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sampson M, McGowan J, Lefebvre C, Moher D, Grimshaw J. PRESS: peer review of electronic search strategies. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  29. PRESS—Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Explanation and Elaboration (PRESS E&E). Ottawa: CADTH; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Noel-Storr AH, et al. Reporting standards for studies of diagnostic test accuracy in dementia: the STARDdem initiative. Neurology. 2014;83:364–73.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1006–12.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B, Davies P, Kleijnen J, Churchill R, ROBIS Group. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:225–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Kath Wright, CRD, and Kate Misso, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd for comments on an earlier draft.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK

    Su Golder

  2. York Health Economics Consortium, University of York, York, UK

    Julie Glanville

Authors
  1. Su Golder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julie Glanville
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Su Golder .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy

    Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Golder, S., Glanville, J. (2018). Searching for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies. In: Biondi-Zoccai, G. (eds) Diagnostic Meta-Analysis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78966-8_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78966-8_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78965-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78966-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation