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
. 2014 Mar 3:14:33.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-33.

Incorporating quality assessments of primary studies in the conclusions of diagnostic accuracy reviews: a cross-sectional study

Eleanor A Ochodo  1 , Wynanda A van Enst, Christiana A Naaktgeboren, Joris A H de Groot, Lotty Hooft, Karel G M Moons, Johannes B Reitsma, Patrick M Bossuyt, Mariska M G Leeflang
Affiliations

Incorporating quality assessments of primary studies in the conclusions of diagnostic accuracy reviews: a cross-sectional study

Eleanor A Ochodo et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: Drawing conclusions from systematic reviews of test accuracy studies without considering the methodological quality (risk of bias) of included studies may lead to unwarranted optimism about the value of the test(s) under study. We sought to identify to what extent the results of quality assessment of included studies are incorporated in the conclusions of diagnostic accuracy reviews.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for test accuracy reviews published between May and September 2012. We examined the abstracts and main texts of these reviews to see whether and how the results of quality assessment were linked to the accuracy estimates when drawing conclusions.

Results: We included 65 reviews of which 53 contained a meta-analysis. Sixty articles (92%) had formally assessed the methodological quality of included studies, most often using the original QUADAS tool (n = 44, 68%). Quality assessment was mentioned in 28 abstracts (43%); with a majority (n = 21) mentioning it in the methods section. In only 5 abstracts (8%) were results of quality assessment incorporated in the conclusions. Thirteen reviews (20%) presented results of quality assessment in the main text only, without further discussion. Forty-seven reviews (72%) discussed results of quality assessment; the most frequent form was as limitations in assessing quality (n = 28). Only 6 reviews (9%) further linked the results of quality assessment to their conclusions, 3 of which did not conduct a meta-analysis due to limitations in the quality of included studies. In the reviews with a meta-analysis, 19 (36%) incorporated quality in the analysis. Eight reported significant effects of quality on the pooled estimates; in none of them these effects were factored in the conclusions.

Conclusion: While almost all recent diagnostic accuracy reviews evaluate the quality of included studies, very few consider results of quality assessment when drawing conclusions. The practice of reporting systematic reviews of test accuracy should improve if readers not only want to be informed about the limitations in the available evidence, but also on the associated implications for the performance of the evaluated tests.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of study inclusion.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews. Rockville, MD: AHRQ Publication No.12-EC017; 2012. - PubMed
    1. Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, Bossuyt PM. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(12):889–897. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-149-12-200812160-00008. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. Higgins JPT, Green S, editor. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies.
    1. Reitsma J, Rutjes A, Whiting P, Vlassov VV, Leeflang M, Deeks J. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Acuracy. Version 1.0.0. Deeks J, Bossuyt P, Gatsonis C, editor. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2009. Chapter9: assessing methodological quality.
    1. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(3):189–202. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-3-200402030-00010. - DOI - PubMed