Meta-epidemiologic analysis indicates that MEDLINE searches are sufficient for diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES To investigate how the summary estimates in diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews are affected when searches are limited to MEDLINE. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING A systematic search was performed to identify DTA reviews that had conducted exhaustive searches and included a meta-analysis. Primary studies included in selected reviews were assessed to determine whether they were indexed on MEDLINE. The effect of omitting non-MEDLINE studies from meta-analyses was investigated by calculating the summary relative diagnostic odds ratio (RDORs) = DORMEDLINE only/DORall studies. We also calculated the summary difference in sensitivity and specificity between all studies and only MEDLINE-indexed studies. RESULTS Ten reviews contributing 15 meta-analyses met inclusion criteria for quantitative analysis. The RDOR comparing MEDLINE-only studies with all studies was 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95, 1.15). Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity remained almost unchanged (difference in sensitivity: -0.08%; 95% CI -1% to 1%; difference in specificity: -0.1%; 95% CI -0.8% to 1%). CONCLUSION Restricting to studies indexed on MEDLINE did not influence the summary estimates of the meta-analyses in our sample. In certain circumstances, for instance, when resources are limited, it may be appropriate to restrict searches to MEDLINE. However, the impact on individual reviews cannot be predicted.

[1]  Henry A Glick,et al.  A critical comparison of clinical decision instruments for computed tomographic scanning in mild closed traumatic brain injury in adolescents and adults. , 2009, Annals of emergency medicine.

[2]  F. Song,et al.  Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. , 2010, Health technology assessment.

[3]  Patrick M. M. Bossuyt,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy , 2013 .

[4]  John Hoey,et al.  Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. , 2004, JAMA.

[5]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[6]  Steve McDonald,et al.  Development of the Cochrane Collaboration’s Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials , 2002, Evaluation & the health professions.

[7]  A. Webster,et al.  Cardiac testing for coronary artery disease in potential kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review of test accuracy studies. , 2011, American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation.

[8]  Sam Vincent,et al.  Clinical Evidence diagnosis: Developing a sensitive search strategy to retrieve diagnostic studies on deep vein thrombosis: a pragmatic approach. , 2003, Health information and libraries journal.

[9]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  Galactomannan detection for invasive aspergillosis in immunocompromized patients. , 2008, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[10]  J. Glanville,et al.  Searching for Studies , 2008 .

[11]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  Galactomannan detection for invasive aspergillosis in immunocompromised patients. , 2015, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[12]  J. Deeks,et al.  A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. , 2005, Health technology assessment.

[13]  J. Sterne,et al.  Systematic reviews of test accuracy should search a range of databases to identify primary studies. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[14]  J. Glanville,et al.  Search strategies to identify diagnostic accuracy studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE. , 2013, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[15]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement , 2009, BMJ.

[16]  P D Bezemer,et al.  Publications on diagnostic test evaluation in family medicine journals: an optimal search strategy. , 2000, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[17]  J Shepherd,et al.  Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) (Xigris) for the treatment of severe sepsis in adults: a systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2005, Health technology assessment.

[18]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[19]  J. Sterne,et al.  Systematic Review: Accuracy of Anti–Citrullinated Peptide Antibodies for Diagnosing Rheumatoid Arthritis , 2010, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[20]  Are one or two simple questions sufficient to detect depression in cancer and palliative care? A Bayesian meta-analysis , 2008, British Journal of Cancer.

[21]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. , 2005, Radiology.

[22]  M. I. Rosa,et al.  Accuracy of magnetic resonance in suspicious breast lesions: a systematic quantitative review and meta-analysis , 2011, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[23]  R. Haynes,et al.  Inclusion of methodological filters in searches for diagnostic test accuracy studies misses relevant studies. , 2012, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[24]  Lucas M. Bachmann,et al.  Research Paper: Identifying Diagnostic Studies in MEDLINE: Reducing the Number Needed to Read , 2002, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[25]  Rinaldo Bellomo,et al.  Accuracy of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) in diagnosis and prognosis in acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2009, American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation.

[26]  David Moher,et al.  Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews , 2007, BMC medical research methodology.

[27]  G. Musso,et al.  Meta-analysis: Natural history of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive tests for liver disease severity , 2011, Annals of medicine.

[28]  K. Robinson.  Should meta-analysts search Embase in addition to Medline? , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[29]  M. Dorgan,et al.  Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. , 2000, Controlled clinical trials.

[30]  Aeilko H. Zwinderman,et al.  Use of uterine artery Doppler ultrasonography to predict pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction: a systematic review and bivariable meta-analysis , 2008, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[31]  Noël H. Fonton,et al.  Impact of variability in adherence to HIV antiretroviral therapy on the immunovirological response and mortality , 2015, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[32]  R. Diel,et al.  Evidence-based comparison of commercial interferon-gamma release assays for detecting active TB: a metaanalysis. , 2010, Chest.

[33]  Alex J Sutton,et al.  Asymmetric funnel plots and publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy. , 2002, International journal of epidemiology.

[34]  John Hoey,et al.  Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. , 2005, Circulation.

[35]  Lotty Hooft,et al.  Reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of investigations on adherence to STARD , 2013, Evidence-Based Medicine.