Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy

By Mariska M. G. Leeflang, J. Deeks, Constantine Gatsonis, P. Bossuyt. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2008

876 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Diagnosis is a critical component of health care, and clinicians, policymakers, and patients routinely face a range of questions regarding diagnostic tests. They want to know whether testing improves outcome; what test to use, purchase, or recommend in practice guidelines; and how to interpret test results. Well-designed diagnostic test accuracy studies can help in making these decisions, provided that they transparently and fully report their participants, tests, methods, and results as facilitated, for example, by the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy) statement (1). That 25-item checklist was published in many journals and is now adopted by more than 200 scientific journals worldwide. As in other areas of science, systematic reviews and meta-analysis of accuracy studies can be used to obtain more precise estimates when small studies addressing the same test and patients in the same setting are available. Reviews can also be useful to establish whether and how scientific findings vary by particular subgroups, and may provide summary estimates with a stronger generalizability than estimates from a single study. Systematic reviews may help identify the risk for bias that may be present in the original studies and can be used to address questions that were not directly considered in the primary studies, such as comparisons between tests. The Cochrane Collaboration is the largest international organization preparing, maintaining, and promoting systematic reviews to help people make well-informed decisions about health care (2). The Collaboration decided in 2003 to make preparations for including systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy in their Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. To enable this, a working group (Appendix). was formed to develop methodology, software, and a handbook The first diagnostic test accuracy review was published in the Cochrane Database in October 2008. In this paper, we review recent methodological developments concerning problem formulation, location of literature, quality assessment, and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies by using our experience from the work on the Cochrane Handbook. The information presented here is based on the recent literature and updates previously published guidelines by Irwig and colleagues (3). Definition of the Objectives of the Review Diagnostic test accuracy refers to the ability of a test to distinguish between patients with disease (or more generally, a specified target condition) and those without. In a study of test accuracy, the results of the test under evaluation, the index test, are compared with those of the reference standard determined in the same patients. The reference standard is an agreed-on and accurate method for identifying patients who have the target condition. Test results are typically categorized as positive or negative for the target condition. By using such binary test outcomes, the accuracy is most often expressed as the test's sensitivity (the proportion of patients with positive results on the reference standard that are also positive on the index test) and specificity (the proportion of patients with negative results on the reference standard that are also negative on the index test). Other measures have been proposed and are in use (46). It has long been recognized that test accuracy is not a fixed property of a test. It can vary between patient subgroups, with their spectrum of disease, with the clinical setting, or with the test interpreters and may depend on the results of previous testing. For this reason, inclusion of these elements in the study question is essential. In order to make a policy decision to promote use of a new index test, evidence is required that using the new test increases test accuracy over other testing options, including current practice, or that the new test has equivalent accuracy but offers other advantages (79). As with the evaluation of interventions, systematic reviews need to include comparative analyses between alternative testing strategies and should not focus solely on evaluating the performance of a test in isolation. In relation to the existing situation, 3 possible roles for a new test can be defined: replacement, triage, and add-on (7). If a new test is to replace an existing test, then comparing the accuracy of both tests on the same population and with the same reference standard provides the most direct evidence. In triage, the new test is used before the existing test or testing pathway, and only patients with a particular result on the triage test continue the testing pathway. When a test is needed to rule out disease in patients who then need no further testing, a test that gives a minimal proportion of falsenegative results and thus a relatively high sensitivity should be used. Triage tests may be less accurate than existing ones, but they have other advantages, such as simplicity or low cost. A third possible role of a new test is add-on. The new test is then positioned after the existing testing pathway to identify false-positive or false-negative results after the existing pathway. The review should provide data to assess the incremental change in accuracy made by adding the new test. An example of a replacement question can be found in a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of urinary markers for primary bladder cancer (10). Clinicians may use cytology to triage patients before they undergo invasive cystoscopy, the reference standard for bladder cancer. Because cytology combines high specificity with low sensitivity (11), the goal of the review was to identify a tumor marker with sufficient accuracy to either replace cytology or be used in addition to cytology. For a marker to replace cytology, it has to achieve equally high specificity with improved sensitivity. New markers that are sensitive but not specific may have roles as adjuncts to conventional testing. The review included studies in which the test under evaluation (several different tumor markers and cytology) was evaluated against cystoscopy or histopathology. Included studies compared 1 or more of the markers, cytology only, or a combination of markers and cytology. Although information on accuracy can help clinicians make decisions about tests, good diagnostic accuracy is a desirable but not sufficient condition for the effectiveness of a test (8). To demonstrate that using a new test does more good than harm to patients tested, randomized trials of test-and-treatment strategies and reviews of such trials may be necessary. However, with the possible exception of screening, in most cases, such randomized trials are not available and systematic reviews of test accuracy may provide the most useful evidence available to guide clinical and health policy decision making and use as input for decision and cost-effectiveness analysis (12). Identification and Selection of Studies Identifying test accuracy studies is more difficult than searching for randomized trials (13). There is not a clear, unequivocal keyword or indexing term for an accuracy study in literature databases comparable with the term randomized, controlled trial. The Medical Subject Heading sensitivity and specificity may look suitable but is inconsistently applied in most electronic bibliographic databases. Furthermore, data on diagnostic test accuracy may be hidden in studies that did not have test accuracy estimation as their primary objective. This complicates the efficient identification of diagnostic test accuracy studies in electronic databases, such as MEDLINE. Until indexing systems properly code studies of test accuracy, searching for them will remain challenging and may require additional manual searches, such as screening reference lists. In the development of a comprehensive search strategy, review authors can use search strings that refer to the test(s) under evaluation, the target condition, and the patient description or a subset of these. For tests with a clear name that are used for a single purpose, searching for publications in which those tests are mentioned may suffice. For other reviews, adding the patient description may be necessary, although this is also often poorly indexed. A search strategy in MEDLINE should contain both Medical Subject Headings and free text words. A search strategy for articles about tests for bladder cancer, for example, should include as many synonyms for bladder cancer as possible in the search strategy, including neoplasm, carcinoma, transitional cell, and hematuria. Several methodological electronic search filters for diagnostic test accuracy studies have been developed, each attempting to restrict the search to articles that are most likely to be test accuracy studies (1316). These filters rely on indexing terms for research methodology and text words used in reporting results, but they often miss relevant studies and are unlikely to decrease the number of articles one needs to screen. Therefore, they are not recommended for systematic reviews (17, 18). The incremental value of searching in languages other than English and in the gray literature has not yet been fully investigated. In systematic reviews of intervention studies, publication bias is an important and well-studied form of bias in which the decision to report and publish studies is linked to their findings. For clinical trials, the magnitude and determinants of publication bias have been identified by tracing the publication history of cohorts of trials reviewed by ethics committees and research boards (19). A consistent observation has been that studies with significant results are more likely to be published than studies with nonsignificant findings (19). Investigating publication bias for diagnostic tests is problematic, because many studies are done without ethical review or study registration; therefore, identification of cohorts of studies from registration to final publication status i

Subfields: Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/83470438a9f4d0ec8f379fcf1dd662d168befb7f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Statistics and Probability

  1. Nancy A. Obuchowski
  2. Jennifer A. Bullen
  3. Abdulhamit Subasi
  4. J. Cairney
  5. D. Streiner

Citations in the corpus