No role for quality scores in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies

被引：238

作者：

Whiting P. ^{[1
]}

Harbord R. ^{[1
]}

Kleijnen J. ^{[2
]}

机构：

[1] MRC Health Services Research Collaboration, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol

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

来源：

BMC Medical Research Methodology | / 5卷 / 1期

关键词：

Quality Score; High Quality Study; Diagnostic Odds Ratio; Quality Assessment Tool; Diagnostic Accuracy Study;

D O I：

10.1186/1471-2288-5-19

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background: There is a lack of consensus regarding the use of quality scores in diagnostic systematic reviews. The objective of this study was to use different methods of weighting items included in a quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS) to produce an overall quality score, and to examine the effects of incorporating these into a systematic review. Methods: We developed five schemes for weighting QUADAS to produce quality scores. We used three methods to investigate the effects of quality scores on test performance. We used a set of 28 studies that assessed the accuracy of ultrasound for the diagnosis of vesico-ureteral reflux in children. Results: The different methods of weighting individual items from the same quality assessment tool produced different quality scores. The different scoring schemes ranked different studies in different orders; this was especially evident for the intermediate quality studies. Comparing the results of studies stratified as "high" and "low" quality based on quality scores resulted in different conclusions regarding the effects of quality on estimates of diagnostic accuracy depending on the method used to produce the quality score. A similar effect was observed when quality scores were included in meta-regression analysis as continuous variables, although the differences were less apparent. Conclusion: Quality scores should not be incorporated into diagnostic systematic reviews. Incorporation of the results of the quality assessment into the systematic review should involve investigation of the association of individual quality items with estimates of diagnostic accuracy, rather than using a combined quality score. © 2005 Whiting et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

引用

共 49 条

[1]

Juni P., Altman D.G., Egger M., Assessing the quality of controlled trials, BMJ, 323, pp. 42-46, (2001)

[2]

Assendelft J.J., Koes B.W., Van Tulder M.W., Bouter L.M., Scoring the quality of clinical trials, JAMA, 283, (2000)

[3]

Ter Riet G., Leffers P., Zeegers M., Scoring the quality of clinical trials, JAMA, 283, (2000)

[4]

Berlin J.A., Rennie D., Measuring the quality of trials: The quality of quality scales, JAMA, 282, pp. 1083-1085, (1999)

[5]

Juni P., Egger M., Scoring the quality of clinical trials, JAMA, 283, pp. 1422-1423, (2000)

[6]

Klassen T., Bias Against Quality Scores, 2002, (2001)

[7]

Greenland S., Invited commentary: A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods, American Journal of Epidemiology, 140, pp. 290-296, (1994)

[8]

Greenland S., Quality scores are useless and potentially misleading, American Journal of Epidemiology, 140, pp. 300-302, (1994)

[9]

Juni P., Witschi A., Bloch R.M., Egger M., The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis, JAMA, 282, pp. 1054-1060, (1999)

[10]

Seffinger M.A., Najm W.I., Mishra S.I., Adams A., Dickerson V.M., Murphy L.S., Reinsch S., Reliability of spinal palpation for diagnosis of back and neck pain: A systematic review of the literature, Spine, 29, (2004)

← 1 2 3 4 5 →