Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review

Assessing Risk of Bias as a Domain of Quality in Medical Test Studies

In: Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012 Jun. Chapter 5.
Affiliations
Free Books & Documents
Review

Assessing Risk of Bias as a Domain of Quality in Medical Test Studies

P Lina Santaguida et al.
Free Books & Documents

Excerpt

Assessing methodological quality is a necessary activity for any systematic review, including those evaluating the evidence for studies of medical test performance. Judging the overall quality of an individual study involves examining the size of the study, the direction and degree of findings, the relevance of the study, and the risk of bias in the form of systematic error, lack of internal validity, and other study limitations. In this chapter of the Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews, we focus on the evaluation of risk of bias in the form of systematic error in an individual study as a distinctly important component of quality in studies of medical test performance, specifically in the context of estimating test performance (sensitivity and specificity). We make the following recommendations to systematic reviewers: (1) When assessing study limitations that are relevant to the test under evaluation, reviewers should select validated criteria that examine the risk of systematic error, (2) categorizing the risk of bias for individual studies as “low,” “medium,” or “high” is a useful way to proceed, and (3) methods for determining an overall categorization for the study limitations should be established a priori and documented clearly.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008. [Accessed September 20, 2011]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK47095.
    1. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and the Cochrane Bias Methods Group. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. [Accessed September 19, 2011]. (updated March 2011) Available at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.
    1. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, et al. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(3):189–202. - PubMed
    1. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Dinnes J, et al. A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:1–12. - PubMed
    1. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Dinnes J, et al. Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(25):iii, 1–234. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources