Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: Didactic guidelines

被引：788

作者：

Devillé W.L. ^{[1
,2
]}

Buntinx F. ^{[3
,4
]}

Bouter L.M. ^{[1
]}

Montori V.M. ^{[5
]}

De Vet H.C.W. ^{[1
]}

Van Der Windt D.A.W.M. ^{[1
]}

Bezemer P.D. ^{[1
,6
]}

机构：

[1] Inst. for Res. in Extramural Med., EMGO Institute, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam

[2] Programme Migrant Health, Netherlands Inst. Hlth. Serv. Res., Utrecht

[3] Department of General Practice, Catholic University Leuven, Leuven

[4] Department of General Practice, University of Maastricht, Maastricht

[5] Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

[6] Dept. Clin. Epidemiol./Biostatist., VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam

来源：

BMC Medical Research Methodology | / 2卷 / 1期

关键词：

Reference Test; Diagnostic Odds Ratio; Urine Dipstick; Diagnostic Accuracy Study; Intervertebral Disc Hernia;

D O I：

10.1186/1471-2288-2-9

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

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.

引用

页码：1 / 13

页数：12

共 48 条

[1] Irwig L., Tosteson A.N.A., Gatsonis C., Lau J., Colditz G., Chalmers T.C., Mosteller F., Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests, Ann Intern Med, 120, pp. 667-676, (1994)
[2] Lijmer J.G., Mol B.W., Heisterkamp S., Bonsel G.J., Prins M.H., Van Der Meulen J.H.P., Bossuyt P.M.M., Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests, JAMA, 282, pp. 1061-1066, (1999)
[3] Oosterhuis W.P., Niessen R.W.L.M., Bossuyt P.M.M., The science of systematic reviewing studies of diagnostic tests, Clin Chem Lab Med, 38, pp. 577-588, (2000)
[4] Jeaschke R., Guyatt G.H., Sackett D.L., 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, 271, pp. 389-391, (1994)
[5] Jeaschke R., Guyatt G.H., Sackett D.L., 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, 271, pp. 703-707, (1994)
[6] Greenhalgh T., How to read a paper: Papers that report diagnostic or screening tests, BMJ, 315, pp. 540-543, (1997)
[7] Reid M.C., Lachs M.S., Feinstein A.R., Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research: Getting better but still not good, JAMA, 274, pp. 645-651, (1995)
[8] Deville W.L., Buntinx F., Didactic guidelines for conducting systematic reviews of studies evaluating the accuracy of diagnostic tests, The Evidence Base of Clinical Diagnosis, pp. 145-165, (2002)
[9] Deeks J.J., Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests, BMJ, 323, pp. 157-162, (2001)
[10] Haynes R.B., Wilczynski N., McKibbon K.A., Walker C.J., Sinclair J.C., Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in Medline, J Am Med Informatics Assoc, 1, pp. 447-458, (1994)

← 1 2 3 4 5 →