Search

Background Drawing conclusions from systematic reviews of test accuracy studies without considering the methodological quality (risk of bias) of included studies may lead to unwarranted optimism about the value of the test(s) under study. We sought to identify to what extent the results of quality assessment of included studies are incorporated in the conclusions of diagnostic accuracy reviews. Methods We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for test accuracy reviews published between May and September 2012. We examined the abstracts and main texts of these reviews to see whether and how the results of quality assessment were linked to the accuracy estimates when drawing conclusions. Results We included 65 reviews of which 53 contained a meta-analysis. Sixty articles (92%) had formally assessed the methodological quality of included studies, most often using the original QUADAS tool (n = 44, 68%). Quality assessment was mentioned in 28 abstracts (43%); with a majority (n = 21) mentioning it in the methods section. In only 5 abstracts (8%) were results of quality assessment incorporated in the conclusions. Thirteen reviews (20%) presented results of quality assessment in the main text only, without further discussion. Forty-seven reviews (72%) discussed results of quality assessment; the most frequent form was as limitations in assessing quality (n = 28). Only 6 reviews (9%) further linked the results of quality assessment to their conclusions, 3 of which did not conduct a meta-analysis due to limitations in the quality of included studies. In the reviews with a meta-analysis, 19 (36%) incorporated quality in the analysis. Eight reported significant effects of quality on the pooled estimates; in none of them these effects were factored in the conclusions. Conclusion While almost all recent diagnostic accuracy reviews evaluate the quality of included studies, very few consider results of quality assessment when drawing conclusions. The practice of reporting systematic reviews of test accuracy should improve if readers not only want to be informed about the limitations in the available evidence, but also on the associated implications for the performance of the evaluated tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assessing the quality of included studies is a vital step in undertaking a systematic review. The recently revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool (QUADAS-2), which is the only validated quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies, does not include specific criteria for assessing comparative studies. As part of an assessment that included comparative diagnostic accuracy studies, we used a modified version of QUADAS-2 to assess study quality. We modified QUADAS-2 by duplicating questions relating to the index test, to assess the relevant potential sources of bias for both the index test and comparator test. We also added review-specific questions. We have presented our modified version of QUADAS-2 and outlined some key issues for consideration when assessing the quality of comparative diagnostic accuracy studies, to help guide other systematic reviewers conducting comparative diagnostic reviews. Until QUADAS is updated to incorporate assessment of comparative studies, QUADAS-2 can be used, although modification and careful thought is required. It is important to reflect upon whether aspects of study design and methodology favour one of the tests over another. © 2013 Crown copyright. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging using the radiotracer 18F-Fluorothymidine (FLT) has been proposed as an imaging biomarker of tumour proliferation. If FLT-PET can be established as such it will provide a non-invasive, quantitative measurement of tumour proliferation across the entire tumour. Results from validation studies have so far been conflicting with some studies confirming a good correlation between FLT uptake and Ki-67 score and others presenting negative results. Methods: Firstly we performed a systematic review of published studies between 1998 and 2011 that explored the correlation between FLT uptake and Ki-67 score and examined possible variations in the methods used. Studies were eligible if they: (a) included patients with cancer, (b) investigated the correlation between Ki-67 measured by immunohistochemistry and FLT uptake measured with PET scanning, and (c) were published as a full paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Secondly a meta-analysis of the correlation coefficient values reported from each study was performed. Correlation coefficient (r) values were extracted from each study and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated after applying Fisher’s z transformation. For subgroup analysis, studies were classified by the index used to characterise Ki-67 expression (average or maximum expression), the nature of the sample (whole specimen or biopsy) and the cancer type. Findings: Twenty-seven studies were identified as eligible for the meta-analysis. In the studies we examined there were variations in aspects of the methods and reporting. The meta-analysis showed that given an appropriate study design the FLT/Ki-67 correlation is significant and independent of cancer type. Specifically subgroup analysis showed that FLT/Ki-67 correlation was high in studies measuring the Ki-67 average expression regardless of use of surgery or biopsy samples (r =0.70, 95% CI=0.43–0.86, p <0.001). Of the studies that measured Ki-67 maximum expression, only those that used the whole surgical specimen provided a significant r value (r =0.72, 95% CI=0.54–0.84, p <0.001). Studies that used biopsy samples for Ki-67 maximum measurements did not produce a significant r value (r =0.04, 95% CI=−0.18–0.26, p =0.71). In terms of the cancer type subgroup analysis there is sufficient data to support a strong FLT/Ki-67 correlation for brain, lung and breast cancer. No publication bias was detected. Interpretation: This systematic review and meta-analysis highlights the importance of the methods used in validation studies comparing FLT-PET imaging with the biomarker Ki-67. The correlation is significant and independent of cancer type provided a study design that uses Ki-67 average measurements, regardless of nature of sample, or whole surgical samples when measuring Ki-67 maximum expression. Sufficient data to support a strong correlation for brain, lung and breast cancer exist. However, larger, prospective studies with improved study design are warranted to validate these findings for the rest of the cancer types. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: Although recent diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer''s disease propose the use of biomarkers, validation of these biomarkers by diagnostic test accuracy studies is a necessary first step, followed by the synthesis of the evidence from these studies in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The quality of the resulting evidence depends on the number and size of the primary studies, their quality, and the adequacy of their reporting. This systematic review assesses the weight and quality of the evidence available from primary diagnostic test accuracy studies. Methods: A MEDLINE search was performed in August 2011 to identify all potentially relevant publications relating to the biomarkers β-amyloid, tau, positron emission tomography (18F-fluorodeoxyglucose or ligands for amyloid), or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The reporting and methodology were assessed using the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies assessment tools, respectively. Because clinical progression to dementia is the most commonly used reference standard, this review focuses on participants with objective cognitive impairment but no dementia at baseline. Results: Of the 19,104 published references identified by the search, 142 longitudinal studies relating to the biomarkers of interest were identified, which included subjects who had objective cognitive impairment but no dementia at baseline. The highest number of studies (n = 70) and of participants (n = 4722) related to structural MRI. MRI also yielded the highest number of studies with extractable data for meta-analysis (n = 32 [46% of all structural MRI studies]), followed by cerebrospinal fluid tau (n = 24 [73%]). There were few studies on positron emission tomography ligands for amyloid having suitable data for meta-analysis (n = 4). There was considerable variation across studies in reporting outcomes, methods of blinding and selection, means of accounting for indeterminate or missing values, the interval between the test and assessments, and the determination of test thresholds. Conclusions: The body of evidence for biomarkers is not large and is variable across the different types of biomarkers. Important information is missing from many study reports, highlighting the need for standardization of methodology and reporting to improve the rigor of biomarker validation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]