Systematic reviews of diagnostic test evaluations: what’s behind the scenes?

As readers of Evidence-Based Medicine, you are aware that systematic reviews are considered the best source of evidence for evidence-based clinical practice. Systematic reviews synthesise data from existing primary research and bring some order and sanity to the otherwise stressful process of sorting out a plethora of studies and staying up to date. However, since not all reviews are created equal, it is important to be able to critically assess their quality. In this editorial, we take you behind the scenes of a systematic review, using diagnostic test accuracy as an illustration. A clear understanding of the process will, hopefully, guide what you look for in a review. Furthermore, if you can’t find an existing diagnostic review and decide to do one yourself, we provide you with a “road map” (figure) for navigation. Se  =  sensitivity; Sp  =  specificity; LR  =  likelihood ratios; DOR  =  diagnostic odds ratios; ROC  =  receiver operating characteristic; SROC  =  summary receiver operating characteristic; TP  =  true positives; FP  =  false positives; TN  =  true negatives; FN  =  false negatives; TPR  =  true positive rate; FPR  =  false positive rate. Superscripts indicate reference numbers. Systematic reviews are done on a range of clinical questions, such as therapy, diagnosis, prognosis, aetiology, harm, and disease prevalence. All systematic reviews follow the same critical steps: 1. Formulation of the review question 2. A comprehensive, systematic search and selection of primary studies 3. Critical appraisal of included studies for quality and data extraction 4. Synthesis and summary of study results 5. Interpretation of the results These steps resemble those of the evidence-based medicine (EBM) process, but are more thorough. In the EBM process, our objective is to quickly hunt down a valid source …

[1]  L E Moses,et al.  Estimating Diagnostic Accuracy from Multiple Conflicting Reports , 1993, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[2]  Frederick Mosteller,et al.  Guidelines for Meta-analyses Evaluating Diagnostic Tests , 1994, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[3]  W. Richardson,et al.  The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. , 1995, ACP journal club.

[4]  Purushottam W. Laud,et al.  Diagnostic tests , 2020, Bayesian Thinking in Biostatistics.

[5]  P Glasziou,et al.  Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy. , 1995, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[6]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 1999, The Lancet.

[7]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. , 1999, JAMA.

[8]  Nancy L. Wilczynski,et al.  PDQ Evidence-Based Principles and Practice , 1999 .

[9]  I. Olkin,et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting , 2000 .

[10]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta‐analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 2000, Revista espanola de salud publica.

[11]  Jonathan J Deeks,et al.  Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. , 2001, BMJ.

[12]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context: Second Edition , 2008 .

[13]  Patrick M M Bossuyt,et al.  Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  Victor M Montori,et al.  Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines , 2002, BMC medical research methodology.

[15]  Gordon H. Guyatt,et al.  Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice; Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: Essentials of Evidence-Based Clinical Practice , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  BMC Medical Research Methodology , 2002 .

[17]  R. Haynes,et al.  Medline : analytical survey scientifically strong studies of diagnosis from Optimal search strategies for retrieving , 2004 .

[18]  David Moher,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. , 2004, Family practice.