BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To review existing quality assessment tools fordiagnostic accuracy studies and to examine to what extent quality was assessedand incorporated in diagnostic systematic reviews.METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for tools to assess the quality ofstudies of diagnostic accuracy or guides for conducting, reporting orinterpreting such studies. The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE;1995-2001) was used to identify systematic reviews of diagnostic studies toexamine the practice of quality assessment of primary studies.RESULTS: Ninety-one quality assessment tools were identified. Only two provideddetails of tool development, and only a small proportion provided any indication of the aspects of quality they aimed to assess. None of the tools had beensystematically evaluated. We identified 114 systematic reviews, of which 58 (51%)had performed an explicit quality assessment and were further examined. Themajority of reviews used more than one method of incorporating quality.CONCLUSION: Most tools to assess the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies donot start from a well-defined definition of quality. None has been systematicallyevaluated. The majority of existing systematic reviews fail to take differencesin quality into account. Reviewers should consider quality as a possible sourceof heterogeneity.
A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools
Rutjes A;
2005-01-01
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To review existing quality assessment tools fordiagnostic accuracy studies and to examine to what extent quality was assessedand incorporated in diagnostic systematic reviews.METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for tools to assess the quality ofstudies of diagnostic accuracy or guides for conducting, reporting orinterpreting such studies. The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE;1995-2001) was used to identify systematic reviews of diagnostic studies toexamine the practice of quality assessment of primary studies.RESULTS: Ninety-one quality assessment tools were identified. Only two provideddetails of tool development, and only a small proportion provided any indication of the aspects of quality they aimed to assess. None of the tools had beensystematically evaluated. We identified 114 systematic reviews, of which 58 (51%)had performed an explicit quality assessment and were further examined. Themajority of reviews used more than one method of incorporating quality.CONCLUSION: Most tools to assess the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies donot start from a well-defined definition of quality. None has been systematicallyevaluated. The majority of existing systematic reviews fail to take differencesin quality into account. Reviewers should consider quality as a possible sourceof heterogeneity.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
