Advertisement

Designing the Review

  • José Mauro Madi
  • Machline Paim Paganella
  • Isnard Elman Litvin
  • Eliana Marcia Wendland
Chapter

Abstract

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) or practice integrates the best research evidence with clinical experience and client values. A systematic review (SR) uses explicit and transparent methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesize results from different, but related, studies. Diagnostic tests are used to aid health professionals in the diagnosis or detection of a specific health outcome. They provide information related to the current stage of the condition, considering the clinical context, to help professionals make decisions.

What differentiates an SR from a narrative review is an established and documented protocol that aims to be replicable and avoids or minimizes the risk of bias or aleatory effects. In this context, the design of the protocol, which is one of the crucial steps in developing an SR, should outline the research question, eligibility criteria, and methods that the authors are going to use. A diagnostic test accuracy review has specific features that include, in addition to health outcomes, descriptions of the index and reference tests, results, and accuracy estimates. A diagnostic test accuracy review explores the accuracy of an index test in discriminating between people who currently present the health condition from people without it. This chapter presents the main concepts in developing a protocol for an SR of diagnostic test accuracy to assist healthcare professionals.

Keywords

Protocol Systematic review Meta-analysis Diagnostic test Accuracy Index test Reference test Decision-making Evidence-based medicine 

References

  1. 1.
    Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biondi-Zoccai G, Abbate A, Benedetto U, Palmerini T, Ascenzo FD, Frati G. Network meta-analysis for evidence synthesis: what is it and why is it posed to dominate cardiovascular decision making? Int. J. Cardiol. 2015;182:309–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mulrow CD. Systematic reviews rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309:597–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    MMG L. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2013;20:105–13.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diretrizes Metodológicas: Elaboração de Revisão Sistemática e Metanálise de Estudos de Acurácia Diagnóstica [Internet]. Ministério. Brasília, DF: Ministério da Saúde, Secretaria de Ciência, Tenologia e Insumos Estratégicos, Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia; 2014. http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/ct/PDF/diretrizes_metodologicas_revisao_sistematica_metanalise_de_estudos.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2018.
  6. 6.
    Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, editor. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2009.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deeks JJ, Wisniewski S, Davenport C. Chapter 4: guide to the contents of a Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy protocol. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, editors. Cochrane handbook systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy version 1.0.0: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2013. p. 1–15. srdta.cochrane.org. Accessed 28 June 2018.
  8. 8.
    Madi JM, Braga AR, Paganella MP, Litvin IE, Da Ros Wendland EM. Accuracy of p57KIP2 compared with genotyping for the diagnosis of complete hydatidiform mole: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2016;5:169.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Campbell JM, Klugar M, Ding S, Carmody DP, Hakonsen SJ, Jadotte YT, White S, Munn Z. Chapter 9: diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. The systematic review of studies of diagnostic test accuracy. Adelaide, SA, Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual; 2015.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Farrugia P, Petrisor BA, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M. Research questions, hypotheses and objectives. Can J Surg. 2010;53:278–81.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leeflang MMG, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, Bossuyt PMM. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:889–97.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deeks JJ, Takwoingi Y, Leeflang MM, Davenport C. Use of medical tests. Lesson 1.1: Cochrane collaboration DTA online learning materials. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2014.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Paul P, Irwig L, et al. Research methods & reporting STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for. BMJ. 2015;5527:1–9.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, Mallet S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. Research and reporting methods accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group TP. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and Meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guyatt GH. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Littenberg B, Moses LE. Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conflicting reports: a new meta-analytic method. Med Decis Mak. 1993;13:313–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moses LE, Shapiro D. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993;12:1293–316.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;58:882–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. J Family Med Prim Care. 2013;2:9–14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bossuyt PM, Irwig L, Craig J, Glasziou P. Comparative accuracy: assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways. BMJ. 2006;332:1089–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Mauro Madi
    • 1
  • Machline Paim Paganella
    • 2
  • Isnard Elman Litvin
    • 1
  • Eliana Marcia Wendland
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculdade de MedicinaUniversidade de Caxias do Sul (UCS)Caxias do SulBrazil
  2. 2.Laboratório de Pesquisa em HIV/AIDSUniversidade de Caxias do Sul (UCS)Caxias do SulBrazil
  3. 3.Departamento de Saúde ColetivaUniversidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre (UFCSPA)Porto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations