Appraising the quality of evidence is an essential step in the systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies development. This procedure allows for appropriate interpretation of results and conclusions. Specific tools are available to report and evaluate the diagnostic accuracy studies. Once important aspect of methodology is the quality of reporting, that when inadequate restricts the comprehension of the study conduction and results. Whereby, the STARD checklist was developed to improve the quality of reporting. The quality assessment of studies included in a systematic review is required to identify possible source of bias and limit their effect on study results. The QUADAS-2 is the recommended and structured tool for diagnostic test accuracy studies. Likewise, method for assessing the quality of evidence is well recognized. The GRADE approach provides a transparent method for rating the quality of evidence. In this chapter, specific tolls were discussed to appraising evidence when performing systematic reviews on diagnostic accuracy studies.
KeywordsEvidence Bias Critical appraisal Reporting Methodological quality
- 5.Manchikanti L, Derby R, Wolfer L, Singh V, Datta S, Hirsch JA. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 5. Diagnostic accuracy studies. Pain Physician. 2009;12:517–40.Google Scholar
- 8.Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Di Nisio M, Smidt N, van Rijn JC, Bossuyt PM. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. CMAJ. 2006;174:469–76.Google Scholar
- 10.Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, QUADAS-2 Steering Group. A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1093–104.Google Scholar
- 14.Roever L. Types of bias in studies of diagnostic test accuracy. Evid Based Med Pract. 2016;1:e113.Google Scholar
- 19.Reitsma JB, Rutjes AWS, Whiting P, Vlassov VV, Leeflang MMG, Deeks JJ. Chapter 9: assessing methodological quality. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy version 1.0.0: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2009. Available from: http://srdta.cochrane.org/. Accessed 28 June 2018.
- 21.http://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/diagnostic-study-appraisal-worksheet.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2018.
- 25.Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig L, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC, Kressel HY, Rifai N, Golub RM, Altman DG, Hooft L, Korevaar DA, Cohen JF, STARD Group. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ. 2015;351:h5527.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 28.Pecoraro V, Banzi R, Trenti T. Quality of reporting of diagnostic test accuracy studies in medical laboratory journals. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2016;54:e319–21.Google Scholar
- 34.Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, Glasziou P, Jaeschke R, Vist GE, Williams JW Jr, Kunz R, Craig J, Montori VM, Bossuyt P, Guyatt GH, GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008;336:1106–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 35.Gopalakrishna G, Mustafa RA, Davenport C, Scholten RJ, Hyde C, Brozek J, Schünemann HJ, Bossuyt PM, Leeflang MM, Langendam MW. Applying Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to diagnostic tests was challenging but doable. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:760–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Brozek JL, Akl EA, Jaeschke R, Lang DM, Bossuyt P, Glasziou P, Helfand M, Ueffing E, Alonso-Coello P, Meerpohl J, Phillips B, Horvath AR, Bousquet J, Guyatt GH, Schünemann HJ, GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: Part 2 of 3. The GRADE approach to grading quality of evidence about diagnostic tests and strategies. Allergy. 2009;64:1109–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar