The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting

Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting
Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting
Objectives To assess the methods and reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic tests.

Data sources Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, and five other databases identified reviews of tests used in patients with cancer. Of these, 89 satisfied our inclusion criteria of reporting accuracy of the test compared with a reference test, including an electronic search, and published since 1990.

Review methods All reviews were assessed for methods and reporting of objectives, search strategy, participants, clinical setting, index and reference tests, study design, study results, graphs, meta-analysis, quality, bias, and procedures in the review. We assessed 25 randomly selected reviews in more detail.

Results 75% (67) of the reviews stated inclusion criteria, 49% (44) tabulated characteristics of included studies, 40% (36) reported details of study design, 17% (15) reported on the clinical setting, 17% (15) reported on the severity of disease in participants, and 49% (44) reported on whether the tumours were primary, metastatic, or recurrent. Of the 25 reviews assessed in detail, 68% (17) stated the reference standard used in the review, 36% (9) reported the definition of a positive result for the index test, and 56% (14) reported sensitivity, specificity, and sample sizes for individual studies. Of the 89 reviews, 61% (54) attempted to formally synthesise results of the studies and 32% (29) reported formal assessments of study quality.

Conclusions Reliability and relevance of current systematic reviews of diagnostic tests is compromised by poor reporting and review methods.
0959-8138
413
Mallett, Susan
9f55a45b-6330-45e9-b817-2f69ebe32d5d
Deeks, Jonathan J.
5770c02a-1faf-4df6-b6ad-f0e8ef4c0c2a
Halligan, Steve
28ec1300-90f5-4311-85a5-176237c4191b
Hopewell, Sally
1a4db982-1b5c-469b-9a15-8a585f0d09e4
Cornelius, Victoria
b75c21d7-2c25-495c-9107-e39453a72bdd
Altman, Douglas G.
f0d739a4-dc94-44d1-a497-603a3ed7d7e6
Mallett, Susan
9f55a45b-6330-45e9-b817-2f69ebe32d5d
Deeks, Jonathan J.
5770c02a-1faf-4df6-b6ad-f0e8ef4c0c2a
Halligan, Steve
28ec1300-90f5-4311-85a5-176237c4191b
Hopewell, Sally
1a4db982-1b5c-469b-9a15-8a585f0d09e4
Cornelius, Victoria
b75c21d7-2c25-495c-9107-e39453a72bdd
Altman, Douglas G.
f0d739a4-dc94-44d1-a497-603a3ed7d7e6

Mallett, Susan, Deeks, Jonathan J., Halligan, Steve, Hopewell, Sally, Cornelius, Victoria and Altman, Douglas G. (2006) Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting. BMJ, 333 (7565), 413. (doi:10.1136/bmj.38895.467130.55).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Objectives To assess the methods and reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic tests.

Data sources Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, and five other databases identified reviews of tests used in patients with cancer. Of these, 89 satisfied our inclusion criteria of reporting accuracy of the test compared with a reference test, including an electronic search, and published since 1990.

Review methods All reviews were assessed for methods and reporting of objectives, search strategy, participants, clinical setting, index and reference tests, study design, study results, graphs, meta-analysis, quality, bias, and procedures in the review. We assessed 25 randomly selected reviews in more detail.

Results 75% (67) of the reviews stated inclusion criteria, 49% (44) tabulated characteristics of included studies, 40% (36) reported details of study design, 17% (15) reported on the clinical setting, 17% (15) reported on the severity of disease in participants, and 49% (44) reported on whether the tumours were primary, metastatic, or recurrent. Of the 25 reviews assessed in detail, 68% (17) stated the reference standard used in the review, 36% (9) reported the definition of a positive result for the index test, and 56% (14) reported sensitivity, specificity, and sample sizes for individual studies. Of the 89 reviews, 61% (54) attempted to formally synthesise results of the studies and 32% (29) reported formal assessments of study quality.

Conclusions Reliability and relevance of current systematic reviews of diagnostic tests is compromised by poor reporting and review methods.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 18 July 2006

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 162303
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/162303
ISSN: 0959-8138
PURE UUID: 156fc151-f823-404a-813c-1ebdb7d28f4e

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 18 Aug 2010 10:52
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 02:01

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Susan Mallett
Author: Jonathan J. Deeks
Author: Steve Halligan
Author: Sally Hopewell
Author: Victoria Cornelius
Author: Douglas G. Altman

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×