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

INTRODUCTION 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.

[1]  D. Rennie,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

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

[3]  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.

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

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

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

[7]  G. ter Riet,et al.  Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Variability in measurement of extracranial internal carotid artery stenosis as displayed by both digital subtraction and magnetic resonance angiography: an assessment of three caliper techniques and visual impression of stenosis. , 1996, Stroke.

[9]  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.

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

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

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

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

[14]  Purushottam W. Laud,et al.  Diagnostic Tests , 2019, Bayesian Thinking in Biostatistics.

[15]  Rebecca S. Graves,et al.  Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. , 2002 .

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

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

[18]  Wayne T. A. Enanoria,et al.  Systematic reviews of diagnostic test evaluations: what’s behind the scenes? , 2004, ACP journal club.