A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools

Penny Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Jacqueline Dinnes; Johannes B Reitsma; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Jos Kleijnen

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.04.008

A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools

Penny Whiting, Anne W S Rutjes, Jacqueline Dinnes, Johannes B Reitsma, Patrick M M Bossuyt, Jos Kleijnen

Bristol Medical School (PHS)

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article (Academic Journal) › peer-review

60 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To review existing quality assessment tools for diagnostic accuracy studies and to examine to what extent quality was assessed and incorporated in diagnostic systematic reviews.

METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for tools to assess the quality of studies of diagnostic accuracy or guides for conducting, reporting or interpreting such studies. The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; 1995-2001) was used to identify systematic reviews of diagnostic studies to examine the practice of quality assessment of primary studies.

RESULTS: Ninety-one quality assessment tools were identified. Only two provided details of tool development, and only a small proportion provided any indication of the aspects of quality they aimed to assess. None of the tools had been systematically evaluated. We identified 114 systematic reviews, of which 58 (51%) had performed an explicit quality assessment and were further examined. The majority of reviews used more than one method of incorporating quality.

CONCLUSION: Most tools to assess the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies do not start from a well-defined definition of quality. None has been systematically evaluated. The majority of existing systematic reviews fail to take differences in quality into account. Reviewers should consider quality as a possible source of heterogeneity.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1-12
Number of pages	12
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	58
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.04.008
Publication status	Published - Jan 2005

Keywords

Bias (Epidemiology)
Data Interpretation, Statistical
Diagnostic Tests, Routine
Humans
Quality Assurance, Health Care
Research Design
Review Literature as Topic

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.04.008

Handle.net

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{e7cdc9b83ada4e06a310657c0dbac58a,

title = "A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools",

abstract = "BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To review existing quality assessment tools for diagnostic accuracy studies and to examine to what extent quality was assessed and incorporated in diagnostic systematic reviews.METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for tools to assess the quality of studies of diagnostic accuracy or guides for conducting, reporting or interpreting such studies. The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; 1995-2001) was used to identify systematic reviews of diagnostic studies to examine the practice of quality assessment of primary studies.RESULTS: Ninety-one quality assessment tools were identified. Only two provided details of tool development, and only a small proportion provided any indication of the aspects of quality they aimed to assess. None of the tools had been systematically evaluated. We identified 114 systematic reviews, of which 58 (51%) had performed an explicit quality assessment and were further examined. The majority of reviews used more than one method of incorporating quality.CONCLUSION: Most tools to assess the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies do not start from a well-defined definition of quality. None has been systematically evaluated. The majority of existing systematic reviews fail to take differences in quality into account. Reviewers should consider quality as a possible source of heterogeneity.",

keywords = "Bias (Epidemiology), Data Interpretation, Statistical, Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Humans, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Research Design, Review Literature as Topic",

author = "Penny Whiting and Rutjes, {Anne W S} and Jacqueline Dinnes and Reitsma, {Johannes B} and Bossuyt, {Patrick M M} and Jos Kleijnen",

year = "2005",

month = jan,

doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.04.008",

language = "English",

volume = "58",

pages = "1--12",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools

AU - Whiting, Penny

AU - Rutjes, Anne W S

AU - Dinnes, Jacqueline

AU - Reitsma, Johannes B

AU - Bossuyt, Patrick M M

AU - Kleijnen, Jos

PY - 2005/1

Y1 - 2005/1

N2 - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To review existing quality assessment tools for diagnostic accuracy studies and to examine to what extent quality was assessed and incorporated in diagnostic systematic reviews.METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for tools to assess the quality of studies of diagnostic accuracy or guides for conducting, reporting or interpreting such studies. The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; 1995-2001) was used to identify systematic reviews of diagnostic studies to examine the practice of quality assessment of primary studies.RESULTS: Ninety-one quality assessment tools were identified. Only two provided details of tool development, and only a small proportion provided any indication of the aspects of quality they aimed to assess. None of the tools had been systematically evaluated. We identified 114 systematic reviews, of which 58 (51%) had performed an explicit quality assessment and were further examined. The majority of reviews used more than one method of incorporating quality.CONCLUSION: Most tools to assess the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies do not start from a well-defined definition of quality. None has been systematically evaluated. The majority of existing systematic reviews fail to take differences in quality into account. Reviewers should consider quality as a possible source of heterogeneity.

AB - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To review existing quality assessment tools for diagnostic accuracy studies and to examine to what extent quality was assessed and incorporated in diagnostic systematic reviews.METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for tools to assess the quality of studies of diagnostic accuracy or guides for conducting, reporting or interpreting such studies. The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; 1995-2001) was used to identify systematic reviews of diagnostic studies to examine the practice of quality assessment of primary studies.RESULTS: Ninety-one quality assessment tools were identified. Only two provided details of tool development, and only a small proportion provided any indication of the aspects of quality they aimed to assess. None of the tools had been systematically evaluated. We identified 114 systematic reviews, of which 58 (51%) had performed an explicit quality assessment and were further examined. The majority of reviews used more than one method of incorporating quality.CONCLUSION: Most tools to assess the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies do not start from a well-defined definition of quality. None has been systematically evaluated. The majority of existing systematic reviews fail to take differences in quality into account. Reviewers should consider quality as a possible source of heterogeneity.

KW - Bias (Epidemiology)

KW - Data Interpretation, Statistical

KW - Diagnostic Tests, Routine

KW - Humans

KW - Quality Assurance, Health Care

KW - Research Design

KW - Review Literature as Topic

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.04.008

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.04.008

M3 - Article (Academic Journal)

C2 - 15649665

SN - 0895-4356

VL - 58

SP - 1

EP - 12

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

IS - 1

ER -

A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Handle.net

Fingerprint

Cite this