Advertisement

Searching for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies

  • Su Golder
  • Julie Glanville
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Database search Publication bias Search Search strategy Diagnostic test accuracy studies 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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

Funding

None.

References

  1. 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. 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. 3.
    Institute of Medicine. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. 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. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. 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. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 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. 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. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 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. 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. 29.
    PRESS—Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Explanation and Elaboration (PRESS E&E). Ottawa: CADTH; 2016.Google Scholar
  30. 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. 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. 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. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Health SciencesUniversity of YorkYorkUK
  2. 2.York Health Economics ConsortiumUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations