Limits...
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies Evaluating Diagnostic Test Accuracy: A Practical Review for Clinical Researchers-Part I. General Guidance and Tips.

Kim KW, Lee J, Choi SH, Huh J, Park SH - Korean J Radiol (2015)

Bottom Line: By means of objective evaluation of all available primary studies, these two processes generate an evidence-based systematic summary regarding a specific research topic.The methodology for systematic review and meta-analysis in DTA studies differs from that in therapeutic/interventional studies, and its content is still evolving.Here we review the overall process from a practical standpoint, which may serve as a reference for those who implement these methods.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05505, Korea.

ABSTRACT
In the field of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA), the use of systematic review and meta-analyses is steadily increasing. By means of objective evaluation of all available primary studies, these two processes generate an evidence-based systematic summary regarding a specific research topic. The methodology for systematic review and meta-analysis in DTA studies differs from that in therapeutic/interventional studies, and its content is still evolving. Here we review the overall process from a practical standpoint, which may serve as a reference for those who implement these methods.

No MeSH data available.


Process to select literature according to Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4644738&req=5

Figure 2: Process to select literature according to Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline.

Mentions: The screening and literature selection should be done independently by at least two researchers, and any disagreement should be settled by reaching a consensus between the two reviewers or by discussion with a third person to avoid the erroneous exclusion of eligible articles. The PRISMA statement (http://www.prisma-statement.org/), which replaces the QUOROM guideline, provides an exemplary format to guide the selection process (12). First, many papers that obviously do not fulfill the predefined eligibility criteria can be removed by simply screening the title and abstract. Then, in case of any uncertainties, the full text should be carefully reviewed. It is very important to keep a record of why any article was excluded, and this information should be inserted in the PRISMA flow chart (Fig. 2). In this chart, "qualitative synthesis" refers to a systematic review used to provide the descriptive statistics without statistical pooling, whereas "quantitative synthesis" refers to a meta-analysis performed to generate summary estimates of a test's diagnostic accuracy. Since the PRISMA checklist was designed for a systematic review and meta-analysis in general, it may need to be modified for a DTA review. However, a modified version of PRISMA (PRISMA-P) currently offers the best prospect of achieving good quality reporting of a systematic review of DTA (8).


Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies Evaluating Diagnostic Test Accuracy: A Practical Review for Clinical Researchers-Part I. General Guidance and Tips.

Kim KW, Lee J, Choi SH, Huh J, Park SH - Korean J Radiol (2015)

Process to select literature according to Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4644738&req=5

Figure 2: Process to select literature according to Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline.
Mentions: The screening and literature selection should be done independently by at least two researchers, and any disagreement should be settled by reaching a consensus between the two reviewers or by discussion with a third person to avoid the erroneous exclusion of eligible articles. The PRISMA statement (http://www.prisma-statement.org/), which replaces the QUOROM guideline, provides an exemplary format to guide the selection process (12). First, many papers that obviously do not fulfill the predefined eligibility criteria can be removed by simply screening the title and abstract. Then, in case of any uncertainties, the full text should be carefully reviewed. It is very important to keep a record of why any article was excluded, and this information should be inserted in the PRISMA flow chart (Fig. 2). In this chart, "qualitative synthesis" refers to a systematic review used to provide the descriptive statistics without statistical pooling, whereas "quantitative synthesis" refers to a meta-analysis performed to generate summary estimates of a test's diagnostic accuracy. Since the PRISMA checklist was designed for a systematic review and meta-analysis in general, it may need to be modified for a DTA review. However, a modified version of PRISMA (PRISMA-P) currently offers the best prospect of achieving good quality reporting of a systematic review of DTA (8).

Bottom Line: By means of objective evaluation of all available primary studies, these two processes generate an evidence-based systematic summary regarding a specific research topic.The methodology for systematic review and meta-analysis in DTA studies differs from that in therapeutic/interventional studies, and its content is still evolving.Here we review the overall process from a practical standpoint, which may serve as a reference for those who implement these methods.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05505, Korea.

ABSTRACT
In the field of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA), the use of systematic review and meta-analyses is steadily increasing. By means of objective evaluation of all available primary studies, these two processes generate an evidence-based systematic summary regarding a specific research topic. The methodology for systematic review and meta-analysis in DTA studies differs from that in therapeutic/interventional studies, and its content is still evolving. Here we review the overall process from a practical standpoint, which may serve as a reference for those who implement these methods.

No MeSH data available.