Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies

被引：606

作者：

Whiting P.F. ^{[1
]}

Weswood M.E. ^{[2
]}

Rutjes A.W.S. ^{[3
]}

Reitsma J.B. ^{[3
]}

Bossuyt P.N.M. ^{[3
]}

Kleijnen J. ^{[2
]}

机构：

[1] MRC Health Services Research Collaboration, Department of Social Medicine, Canynge Hall, Bristol, Whiteladies Road

[2] Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York

[3] Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam

来源：

BMC Medical Research Methodology | / 6卷 / 1期

基金：

英国医学研究理事会;

关键词：

Background Document; Quality Assessment Tool; Diagnostic Accuracy Study; Final Consensus; Consensus Rating;

D O I：

10.1186/1471-2288-6-9

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background: A quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies, named QUADAS, has recently been developed. Although QUADAS has been used in several systematic reviews, it has not been formally validated. The objective was to evaluate the validity and usefulness of QUADAS. Methods: Three reviewers independently rated the quality of 30 studies using QUADAS. We assessed the proportion of agreements between each reviewer and the final consensus rating. This was done for all QUADAS items combined and for each individual item. Twenty reviewers who had used QUADAS in their reviews completed a short structured questionnaire on their experience of QUADAS. Results: Over all items, the agreements between each reviewer and the final consensus rating were 91%, 90% and 85%. The results for individual QUADAS items varied between 50% and 100% with a median value of 90%. Items related to uninterpretable test results and withdrawals led to the most disagreements. The feedback on the content of the tool was generally positive with only small numbers of reviewers reporting problems with coverage, ease of use, clarity of instructions and validity. Conclusion: Major modifications to the content of QUADAS itself are not necessary. The evaluation highlighted particular difficulties in scoring the items on uninterpretable results and withdrawals. Revised guidelines for scoring these items are proposed. It is essential that reviewers tailor guidelines for scoring items to their review, and ensure that all reviewers are clear on how to score studies. Reviewers should consider whether all QUADAS items are relevant to their review, and whether additional quality items should be assessed as part of their review. © 2006Whiting et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

引用

页数：8

共 7 条

[1]

Whiting P., Rutjes A.W.S., Reitsma J.B., Bossuyt P.M., Kleijnen J., The development of QUADAS: A tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 3, (2003)

[2]

Bland J.M., Altman D.G., Statistics Notes: Validating scales and indexes, BMJ, 324, pp. 606-607, (2002)

[3]

Whiting P., Rutjes A.W., Dinnes J., Reitsma J., Bossuyt P.M., Kleijnen J., Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies, Health Technol Assess, 8, pp. 1-234, (2004)

[4]

Lantz C.A., Nebenzahl E., Behavior and interpretation of the [kappa] statistic: Resolution of the two paradoxes, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49, pp. 431-434, (1996)

[5]

Altman D.G., 14.3 Inter-rater agreement, Practical Statistics for Medical Research First Edition Edition, pp. 403-408, (1999)

[6]

Brown J.D., Testing in Language Problems, (1996)

[7]

Bossuyt P.M., Reitsma J.B., Bruns D.E., Gatsonis C.A., Glasziou P.P., Irwig L.M., Lijmer J.G., Moher D., Rennie D., De Vet H.C., Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative, Ann Intern Med, 138, pp. 40-44, (2003)

← 1 →