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
. 2019 Apr 4:3:7.
doi: 10.1186/s41512-019-0052-y. eCollection 2019.

Challenges of rapid reviews for diagnostic test accuracy questions: a protocol for an international survey and expert consultation

Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez  1 , Andrea C Tricco  2   3 , Karen R Steingart  4 , Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit  5 , David Kaunelis  6 , Pablo Alonso-Coello  7   8 , Susan Baxter  9 , Patrick M Bossuyt  10 , Javier Zamora  1
Affiliations

Challenges of rapid reviews for diagnostic test accuracy questions: a protocol for an international survey and expert consultation

Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez et al. Diagn Progn Res. .

Abstract

Background: Assessment of diagnostic tests, broadly defined as any element that aids in the collection of additional information for further clarification of a patient's health status, has increasingly become a critical issue in health policy and decision-making. Diagnostic evidence, including the accuracy of a medical test for a target condition, is commonly appraised using standard systematic review methodology. Owing to the considerable time and resources required to conduct these, rapid reviews have emerged as a pragmatic alternative by tailoring methods according to the decision maker's circumstances. However, it is not known if streamlining methodological aspects has an impact on the validity of evidence synthesis. Furthermore, due to the particular nature and complexity of the appraisal of diagnostic accuracy, there is need for detailed guidance on how to conduct rapid reviews of diagnostic tests. In this study, we aim to identify the methods currently used by rapid review developers to synthesize evidence on diagnostic test accuracy, as well as to analyze potential shortcomings and challenges related to these methods.

Methods: We will carry out a two-fold approach: (1) an international survey of professionals working in organizations that develop rapid reviews of diagnostic tests, in terms of the methods and resources used by these agencies when conducting rapid reviews, and (2) semi-structured interviews with senior-level individuals to further explore and validate the findings from the survey and to identify challenges in conducting rapid reviews. We will use STATA 15.0 for quantitative analyses and framework analysis for qualitative analyses. We will ensure protection of data during all stages.

Discussion: The main result of this research will be a map of methods and resources currently used for conducting rapid reviews of diagnostic test accuracy, as well as methodological shortcomings and potential solutions in diagnostic knowledge synthesis that require further research.

Keywords: Accuracy; Diagnostic tests; Knowledge synthesis; Rapid reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

In accordance with the Spanish National Regulation, this study has been exempt of approval by our Ethics committee for Investigation (Hospital Ramon y Cajal, communication received on November 6 of 2018).Not applicableThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Knottnerus J, Frank B. The evidence base of clinical diagnosis. 2. London: BMJ Books; 2009.
    1. Tricco AC, Langlois EV, Straus SE, editors. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide. Geneve: World Health Organization; 2017.
    1. Mustafa RA, Wiercioch W, Falavigna M, Zhang Y, Ivanova L, Arevalo-Rodriguez I, Cheung A, Prediger B, Ventresca M, Brozek J, et al. Decision making about healthcare-related tests and diagnostic test strategies. Paper 3: a systematic review shows limitations in most tools designed to assess quality and develop recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;92:29–37. - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. All in the family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Syst Rev. 2015;4:183. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Deeks J, Bossuyt P, Gatsonis CE. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2010. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources