Searching for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies
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.
KeywordsDatabase search Publication bias Search Search strategy Diagnostic test accuracy studies
We would like to thank Kath Wright, CRD, and Kate Misso, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd for comments on an earlier draft.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle 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
- 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.
- 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