Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2003

Open Access 01-12-2003 | Research article

The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews

Authors: Penny Whiting, Anne WS Rutjes, Johannes B Reitsma, Patrick MM Bossuyt, Jos Kleijnen

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2003

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In the era of evidence based medicine, with systematic reviews as its cornerstone, adequate quality assessment tools should be available. There is currently a lack of a systematically developed and evaluated tool for the assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. The aim of this project was to combine empirical evidence and expert opinion in a formal consensus method to develop a tool to be used in systematic reviews to assess the quality of primary studies of diagnostic accuracy.

Methods

We conducted a Delphi procedure to develop the quality assessment tool by refining an initial list of items. Members of the Delphi panel were experts in the area of diagnostic research. The results of three previously conducted reviews of the diagnostic literature were used to generate a list of potential items for inclusion in the tool and to provide an evidence base upon which to develop the tool.

Results

A total of nine experts in the field of diagnostics took part in the Delphi procedure. The Delphi procedure consisted of four rounds, after which agreement was reached on the items to be included in the tool which we have called QUADAS. The initial list of 28 items was reduced to fourteen items in the final tool. Items included covered patient spectrum, reference standard, disease progression bias, verification bias, review bias, clinical review bias, incorporation bias, test execution, study withdrawals, and indeterminate results. The QUADAS tool is presented together with guidelines for scoring each of the items included in the tool.

Conclusions

This project has produced an evidence based quality assessment tool to be used in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. Further work to determine the usability and validity of the tool continues.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Glasziou P, Irwig L, Bain C, Colditz G: Systematic reviews in health care: A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001 Glasziou P, Irwig L, Bain C, Colditz G: Systematic reviews in health care: A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001
2.
go back to reference Deeks J: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. In: Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in context. Edited by: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman D. 2001, London: BMJ Publishing Group, Second edition Deeks J: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. In: Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in context. Edited by: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman D. 2001, London: BMJ Publishing Group, Second edition
3.
go back to reference Whiting P, Rutjes A, Dinnes J, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt P, Kleijnen J: A systematic review of existing quality assessment tools used to assess the quality of diagnostic research. submitted Whiting P, Rutjes A, Dinnes J, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt P, Kleijnen J: A systematic review of existing quality assessment tools used to assess the quality of diagnostic research. submitted
4.
go back to reference Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995 Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995
5.
go back to reference Jadad AR, Moore A, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ: Assessing the quality of reports of randomised clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials. 1996, 17: 1-12. 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4.CrossRefPubMed Jadad AR, Moore A, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ: Assessing the quality of reports of randomised clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials. 1996, 17: 1-12. 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch RM, Egger M: The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999, 282: 1054-1060. 10.1001/jama.282.11.1054.CrossRefPubMed Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch RM, Egger M: The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999, 282: 1054-1060. 10.1001/jama.282.11.1054.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Greenland S: Invited Commentary: A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods. A J Epidemiol. 1994, 140: 290-296. Greenland S: Invited Commentary: A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods. A J Epidemiol. 1994, 140: 290-296.
9.
go back to reference Whiting P, Dinnes J, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, M BP, Kleijnen J: A systematic review of how quality assessment has been handled in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. submitted Whiting P, Dinnes J, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, M BP, Kleijnen J: A systematic review of how quality assessment has been handled in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. submitted
10.
go back to reference Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Dinnes J, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PMM, Kleijnen J: The development and validation of methods for assessing the quality and reporting of diagnostic studies. Health Technol Assess. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Dinnes J, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PMM, Kleijnen J: The development and validation of methods for assessing the quality and reporting of diagnostic studies. Health Technol Assess.
11.
go back to reference Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Glas A, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J: A systematic review of sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy. Ann Intern Med, In press. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Glas A, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J: A systematic review of sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy. Ann Intern Med, In press.
14.
go back to reference Bossuyt P, Reitsma J, Bruns D, Gatsonis C, Glasziou P, Irwig L, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet H, Lijmer J: The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem. 2003, 49: 7-18. 10.1373/49.1.7.CrossRefPubMed Bossuyt P, Reitsma J, Bruns D, Gatsonis C, Glasziou P, Irwig L, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet H, Lijmer J: The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem. 2003, 49: 7-18. 10.1373/49.1.7.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG: Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995, 273: 408-412. 10.1001/jama.273.5.408.CrossRefPubMed Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG: Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995, 273: 408-412. 10.1001/jama.273.5.408.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews
Authors
Penny Whiting
Anne WS Rutjes
Johannes B Reitsma
Patrick MM Bossuyt
Jos Kleijnen
Publication date
01-12-2003
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2003
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-3-25

Other articles of this Issue 1/2003

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2003 Go to the issue