Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2002

Open Access 01-12-2002 | Research article

Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines

Authors: Walter L Devillé, Frank Buntinx, Lex M Bouter, Victor M Montori, Henrica CW de Vet, Danielle AWM van der Windt, P Dick Bezemer

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2002

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Although guidelines for critical appraisal of diagnostic research and meta-analyses have already been published, these may be difficult to understand for clinical researchers or do not provide enough detailed information.

Methods

Development of guidelines based on a systematic review of the evidence in reports of systematic searches of the literature for diagnostic research, of methodological criteria to evaluate diagnostic research, of methods for statistical pooling of data on diagnostic accuracy, and of methods for exploring heterogeneity.

Results

Guidelines for conducting diagnostic systematic reviews are presented in a stepwise fashion and are followed by comments providing further information. Examples are given using the results of two systematic reviews on the accuracy of the urine dipstick in the diagnosis of urinary tract infections, and on the accuracy of the straight-leg-raising test in the diagnosis of intervertebral disc hernia.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Irwig L, Tosteson ANA, Gatsonis C, Lau J, Colditz G, Chalmers TC, Mosteller F: Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med. 1994, 120: 667-676.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, van der Meulen JHP, PMM Bossuyt: Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA. 1999, 282: 1061-1066. 10.1001/jama.282.11.1061.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Oosterhuis WP, Niessen RWLM, Bossuyt PMM: The science of systematic reviewing studies of diagnostic tests. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2000, 38: 577-588.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Jeaschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL: User's guidelines to the medical literature, III: how to use an article about a diagnostic test, A: are the results of the study valid?. JAMA. 1994, 271: 389-391.CrossRef
5.
Jeaschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL: User's guidelines to the medical literature, III: how to use an article about a diagnostic test, B: what are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients?. JAMA. 1994, 271: 703-707.CrossRef
6.
7.
Reid MC, Lachs MS, Feinstein AR: Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research: getting better but still not good. JAMA. 1995, 274: 645-651. 10.1001/jama.274.8.645.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Devillé WL, Buntinx F: Didactic Guidelines for Conducting Systematic Reviews of Studies Evaluating the Accuracy of Diagnostic Tests. in: The Evidence Base of Clinical Diagnosis. Edited by: A. Knottnerus. 2002, BMJ Books, London, 145-65.
9.
Deeks JJ: Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ. 2001, 323: 157-162. 10.1136/bmj.323.7305.157.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Haynes RB, Wilczynski N, McKibbon KA, Walker CJ, Sinclair JC: Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in Medline. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 1994, 1: 447-458.CrossRef
11.
12.
van der Weijden T, Yzermans CJ, Dinant GJ, van Duijn NP, de Vet R, Buntinx F: Identifying relevant diagnostic studies in MEDLINE. The diagnostic value of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and dipstick as an example. Fam Pract. 1997, 14: 204-208. 10.1093/fampra/14.3.204.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Devillé WLJM, Bezemer PD, Bouter LM: Publications on diagnostic test evaluation in family medicine journals: an optimal search strategy. J Clin Epidemiol,. 2000, 53: 65-69. 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00144-4.CrossRef
14.
McClish DK: Combining and comparing area estimates across studies or strata. Med Dec Making. 1992, 12: 274-279.CrossRef
15.
Littenberg B, Moses LE: Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conflicting reports: a new meta-analytic method. Med Dec Making. 1993, 13: 313-321.CrossRef
16.
Midgette AS, Stukel TA, Littenberg B: A meta-analytic method for summarising diagnostic test performances: Receiver-operating-characteristic-summary point estimates. Med Dec Making. 1993, 13: 253-257.CrossRef
17.
Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B: Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993, 12: 1293-1316.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Hasselblad V, Hedges LV: Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. Psychol Bull. 1995, 117: 167-178. 10.1037//0033-2909.117.1.167.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Irwig L, Macaskill P, Glasziou P, Fahey M: Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995, 48: 119-130. 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00099-C.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA: Regression methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic test data. Acad Radiol. 1995, 2: S48-S56.PubMed
21.
Shapiro DE: Issues in combining independent estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic test. Acad Radiol. 1995, 2: S37-S47.PubMed
22.
Walter SD, Irwig L, Glasziou PP: Meta-analysis of diagnostic tests with imperfect reference standards. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999, 52: 943-951. 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00086-4.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Yusuf S, Wittes J, Probsfield J, Tyroler HA: Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomised clinical trials. JAMA. 1991, 266: 93-98. 10.1001/jama.266.1.93.CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
26.
Colditz GA, Burdick E, Mosteller F: Heterogeneity in meta-analysis of data from epidemiologic studies: a commentary. Am J Epidemiol. 1995, 142: 371-382.PubMed
27.
Mulrow C, Langhorne P, Grimshaw J: Integrating heterogeneous pieces of evidence in systematic reviews. Ann Int Med. 1997, 127: 989-995.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Devillé WLJM, Yzermans JC, van Duin NP, van der Windt DAWM, Bezemer PD, LM Bouter: Which factors affect the accuracy of the urine dipstick for the detection of bacteriuria or urinary tract infections? A meta-analysis. In: Evidence in diagnostic research. Reviewing diagnostic accuracy: from search to guidelines. In PhD thesis Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Chapter 4. 2001, 39-73.
29.
Devillé WLJM, van der Windt DAWM, Dzaferagic A, Bezemer PD, Bouter LM: The test of Lasègue: systematic review of the accuracy in diagnosing herniated discs. Spine. 2000, 25: 1140-1147. 10.1097/00007632-200005010-00016.CrossRefPubMed
30.
31.
van Tulder MW, Assendelft WJJ, Koes BW, Bouter LM, and the Editorial Board of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group: Method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group for spinal disorders. Spine. 1997, 22: 2323-2330. 10.1097/00007632-199710150-00001.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Obuchowski NA: Sample size calculations in studies of test accuracy. Stat Meth in Med Research. 1998, 7: 371-392. 10.1191/096228098678080061.CrossRef
33.
Campens D, Buntinx F: Selecting the best renal function tests: a meta-analysis of diagnostic studies. Int J Techn Ass Health Care. 1997, 13: 343-356.CrossRef
34.
Grégoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J: Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a tower of Babel bias?. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995, 48: 159-163. 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00098-B.CrossRefPubMed
35.
36.
Knottnerus JA, Muris JW: Assessment of the accuracy of diagnostic tests: the cros-sectional study. In: The evidence base of clinical diagnosis. Edited by: JA Knottnerus. 2002, BMJ Books, London, 39-59.
37.
Aertgeerts B, Buntinx F, Kester A, Fevery J: Diagnostic value of the CAGE questionnaire in screening for alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence: a meta-analysis. In: Screening for alcohol abuse or dependence. In PhD-thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium,. 2000, Appendix 3:
38.
39.
40.
Galbraith RF: A note on graphical presentation of estimated odds ratios from several clinical trials. Stat Med. 1988, 7: 889-894.CrossRefPubMed
41.
DerSimonian R, Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials. 1986, 7: 177-188. 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA: A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med. 2001, 20: 2865-84. 10.1002/sim.942.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Greenland S: Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods. Am J Epidemiol. 1994, 140: 290-296.PubMed
44.
Irwig L: Modelling result-specific likelihood ratios. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989, 42: 1021-1024.CrossRef
45.
Tosteson ANA, Begg CB: A general regression methodology for ROC curve estimation. Med Decis Making. 1988, 204-215.
46.
47.
Greenland S: A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods. Am J Epidemiol. 1994, 140: 290-301.PubMed
48.
Shapiro S: Meta-analysis/Shmeta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1994, 140: 771-777.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines
Authors
Walter L Devillé
Frank Buntinx
Lex M Bouter
Victor M Montori
Henrica CW de Vet
Danielle AWM van der Windt
P Dick Bezemer
Publication date
01-12-2002
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2002
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-2-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2002

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2002 Go to the issue

Erratum

Erratum to: Sample size requirements for case-control study designs

Research article

Bias and heteroscedastic memory error in self-reported health behavior: an investigation using covariance structure analysis

Research article

Choosing marginal or random-effects models for longitudinal binary responses: application to self-reported disability among older persons

Debate

The probability of cost-effectiveness

Debate

Simpson's paradox and calculation of number needed to treat from meta-analysis

Research article

Statistical issues in randomized trials of cancer screening