Updating diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews (SRs) is fundamental in order to avoid making clinical decisions based on out-of-date and/or incomplete information. The decision of which SR to update should be based on the quality of the SR and on the currency of its topic. If SRs are considered worthy of updating, priority should first be established depending on the availability of elements of novelty (in terms of published studies, methodology, decisional approach, or standards of quality), as well as on the expected impact and value of information.
Before starting the updating process, a careful work plan is necessary, refreshing the state of the art, the aim, and the methods. Once the update has been performed, new findings and conclusions should be clearly displayed.
Checklist Currency Novelty Value of information Refreshing
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, Bossuyt PM, Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:889–97.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Matchar DB. Chapter 1: introduction to the methods guide for medical test reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:S4–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Lord SJ, Irwig L, Simes RJ. When is measuring sensitivity and specificity sufficient to evaluate a diagnostic test, and when do we need randomized trials? Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:850–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Higgins J, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. http://handbook.cochrane.org. Accessed 29 June 2018.
Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJ. Preparing and updating systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health care. Milbank Q. 1993;71:411–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Tsertsvadze A, Maglione M, Chou R, et al. Updating comparative effectiveness reviews: current efforts in AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1208–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Sagliocca L, De Masi S, Ferrigno L, Mele A, Traversa G. A pragmatic strategy for the review of clinical evidence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19:689–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:401–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C, McNally R, Cheraghi-Sohi S. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:579.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Newberry SJ, Shekelle PG, Vaiana M, Motala A. Reporting the findings of updated systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness: how do users want to view new information? Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013.Google Scholar
Leeflang MM, Debets-Ossenkopp YJ, Visser CE, et al. Galactomannan detection for invasive aspergillosis in immunocompromised patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(4):CD007394.Google Scholar
Leeflang MM, Debets-Ossenkopp YJ, Wang J, et al. Galactomannan detection for invasive aspergillosis in immunocompromised patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(12):CD007394.Google Scholar
Virgili G, Menchini F, Murro V, Peluso E, Rosa F, Casazza G. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) for detection of macular oedema in patients with diabetic retinopathy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(7):CD008081.Google Scholar
Virgili G, Menchini F, Casazza G, et al. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) for detection of macular oedema in patients with diabetic retinopathy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;1:CD008081.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Theron G, Peter J, Richardson M, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of the GenoType((R)) MTBDRsl assay for the detection of resistance to second-line anti-tuberculosis drugs. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(10):CD010705.Google Scholar
Theron G, Peter J, Richardson M, Warren R, Dheda K, Steingart KR. GenoType(R) MTBDRsl assay for resistance to second-line anti-tuberculosis drugs. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;9:CD010705.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Allen VB, Gurusamy KS, Takwoingi Y, Kalia A, Davidson BR. Diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy following computed tomography (CT) scanning for assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic and periampullary cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(11):CD009323.Google Scholar
Allen VB, Gurusamy KS, Takwoingi Y, Kalia A, Davidson BR. Diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy following computed tomography (CT) scanning for assessing the resectability with curative intent in pancreatic and periampullary cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;7:CD009323.PubMedGoogle Scholar