Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting
Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.38895.467130.55
复制
发表时间：
2006-08-26
影响因子：
105.7
通讯作者：
Altman, Douglas G.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mallett, Susan;Deeks, Jonathan J.;Altman, Douglas G.
目的评价诊断试验系统评价的方法和报告。数据来源：系统检索Medline、Embase和其他5个数据库，确定癌症患者使用的试验评价。回顾方法对所有综述的方法和目标的报告、检索策略、参与者、临床设置、索引和参考试验、研究设计、研究结果、曲线图、荟萃分析、质量、偏倚和程序进行评估。结果75%(67)的综述陈述了纳入标准，49%(44)列出了纳入研究的特征，40%(36)报告了研究设计的细节，17%(15)报告了临床环境，17%(15)报告了参与者的疾病严重程度，49%(44)报告了肿瘤是原发的、转移的还是复发的。在详细评估的25篇综述中，68%(17)陈述了综述中使用的参考标准，36%(9)报告了指数测试的阳性结果的定义，56%(14)报告了个别研究的敏感性、特异性和样本量。在89篇综述中，61篇(54篇)试图正式综合研究结果，32%(29篇)报告了对研究质量的正式评估。结论当前诊断试验系统评价的可靠性和相关性受到不良报告和评价方法的影响。
Objectives To assess the methods and reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic tests.Data sources Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, and five other databases identified reviews of tests used in patients with cancer. Of these, 89 satisfied our inclusion criteria of reporting accuracy of the test compared with a reference test, including an electronic search, and published since 1990.Review methods All reviews were assessed for methods and reporting of objectives, search strategy, participants, clinical setting, index and reference tests, study design, study results, graphs, meta-analysis, quality, bias, and procedures in the review. We assessed 25 randomly selected reviews in more detail.Results 75% (67) of the reviews stated inclusion criteria, 49% (44) tabulated characteristics of included studies, 40% (36) reported details of study design, 17% (15) reported on the clinical setting, 17% (15) reported on the severity of disease in participants, and 49% (44) reported on whether the tumours were primary, metastatic, or recurrent. Of the 25 reviews assessed in detail, 68% (17) stated the reference standard used in the review, 36% (9) reported the definition of a positive result for the index test, and 56% (14) reported sensitivity, specificity, and sample sizes for individual studies. Of the 89 reviews, 6 1 No (54) attempted to formally synthesise results of the studies and 32% (29) reported formal assessments of study quality.Conclusions Reliability and relevance of current systematic reviews of diagnostic tests is compromised by poor reporting and review methods.