Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies

McInnes, Matthew D. F.; Moher, David; Thombs, Brett D.; McGrath, Trevor A.; Bossuyt, Patrick M.; Clifford, Tammy; Cohen, Jérémie F.; Deeks, Jonathan J; Gatsonis, Constantine; Hooft, Lotty; Hunt, Harriet; Hyde, Christopher; Korevaar, Daniël A.; Leeflang, Mariska; Macaskill, Petra; Reitsma, Johannes B.; Rodin, Rachel; Rutjes, Anne W S; Salameh, Jean‐Paul; Stevens, Adrienne; Takwoingi, Yemisi; Tonelli, Marcello; Weeks, Laura; Whiting, Penny; Willis, Brian H

doi:10.1001/jama.2017.19163

Cited by 2,069 publications

(1,423 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,300

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The existence of a periodontitis‐associated biomarker profile in GCF does not indicate its diagnostic capability (de Morais et al, ; Stadler et al, ). Investigations of diagnostic capability require the design of a specific accuracy study, which provides estimates of test performance (e.g., sensitivity and specificity) (McInnes et al, ). Healthcare professionals looking for evidence about diagnostic tests may turn to systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy (Leeflang, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of single molecular biomarkers in gingival crevicular fluid for the diagnosis of periodontitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Arias-Bujanda

Regueira-Iglesias

Balsa-Castro

et al. 2019

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To analyse, by means of a meta‐analytical approach, the diagnostic accuracy of molecular biomarkers in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) for the detection of periodontitis in systemically healthy subjects. Material and Methods Studies on GCF molecular biomarkers providing a binary classification table (or sensitivity and specificity values and group sample sizes) in individuals with clinically diagnosed periodontitis were considered eligible. The search was performed using six electronic databases. The methodological quality of studies was assessed through the tool Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Studies. Meta‐analyses were performed using the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic, which adjusts classification data using random effects logistic regression. Results The included papers identified 36 potential biomarkers for the detection of periodontitis and for four of them meta‐analyses were performed. The median sensitivity and specificity were for MMP8, 76.7% and 92.0%; for elastase, 74.6% and 81.1%; for cathepsin, 72.8% and 67.3%, respectively. The worst estimates of sensitivity and specificity were for trypsin (71.3% and 66.1%, respectively). Conclusions MMP8 showed good sensitivity and excellent specificity, which resulted in this biomarker being clinically the most useful or effective for the diagnosis of periodontitis in systemically healthy subjects, regardless of smoking condition.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of single molecular biomarkers in gingival crevicular fluid for the diagnosis of periodontitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Arias-Bujanda

Regueira-Iglesias

Balsa-Castro

et al. 2019

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) statement [30]. …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic accuracy of MRA and MRI for the bursal-sided partial-thickness rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis

Huang

Liu

et al. 2019

J Orthop Surg Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Numerous quantitatively studies have focused on the diagnosis of bursal-sided partial-thickness rotator cuff tears (RCTs); however, the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MR arthrography (MRA) remains inconclusive. This study was performed systematically to compare the diagnostic value of MRA and MRI for the bursal-sided partial-thickness RCTs. Methods Three electronic databases, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library, were utilized to retrieve articles comparing the diagnostic value of MRA and MRI for detecting bursal-sided partial-thickness RCTs. After screening and diluting out the articles that met the inclusion criteria to be used for statistical analysis, the pooled evaluation indexes include sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results Twelve studies involving 1740 patients and 1741 shoulders were identified. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and AUC of MRA to diagnose bursal-sided partial-thickness RCTs were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.67–0.85), 0.98 (95% CI, 0.95–0.99), 73.01 (95% CI, 35.01–152.26), and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85–0.91), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and AUC of MRI were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66–0.86) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.81–0.99), and 37.12 (95% CI, 8.08–170.64) and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.78–0.85), respectively. Conclusions This meta-analysis reveals that MRA and MRI have similar diagnostic value for the diagnosis of bursal-sided partial-thickness rotator cuff tears.

show abstract

“…A study was considered to have studied safety if any outcome studied satisfied the definition of harms as in PRISMA-Harms guidelines for SRMAs (encompassing various terms such as “adverse drug reaction,” “adverse effect,” “adverse event,” “complication,” “harm,” “safety,” “side effect,” and “toxicity”) [38]. Studies were deemed having other outcomes as per their established definitions in context of SRMAs (eg, diagnostic [39], prognostic [40], epidemiological (etiological/descriptive/association) [41–43], economic analysis [44]). A single SRMA could have multiple types of outcomes.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inadequate diversity of information resources searched in US-affiliated systematic reviews and meta-analyses: 2005–2016

Pradhan

Garnick

Barkondaj

et al. 2018

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) rely upon comprehensive searches into diverse resources that catalog primary studies. However, since what constitutes a comprehensive search is unclear, we examined trends in databases searched from 2005–2016, surrounding the publication of search guidelines in 2013, and associations between resources searched and evidence of publication bias in SRMAs involving human subjects. Study Design: To ensure comparability of included SRMAs over the 12 years in the face of a near 100-fold increase of international SRMAs (mainly genetic studies from China) during this period, we focused on USA-affiliated SRMAs, manually reviewing 100 randomly selected SRMAs from those published in each year. After excluding articles (mainly for inadequate detail or out-of-scope methods), we identified factors associated with the databases searched, used network analysis to see which resources were simultaneously searched, and used logistic regression to link information sources searched with a lower chance of finding publication bias. Results: Among 817 SRMA articles studied, the common resources used were Medline (95%), EMBASE (44%), and Cochrane (41%). Methods journal SRMAs were most likely to use registries and grey literature resources. We found substantial co-searching of resources with only published materials, and not complemented by searches of registries and the grey literature. The 2013 guideline did not substantially increase searching of registries and grey literature resources to retrieve primary studies for the SRMAs. When used to augment Med-line, Scopus (in all SRMAs) and ClinicalTrials.gov (in SRMAs with safety outcomes) were negatively associated with publication bias. Conclusions: Even SRMAs that search multiple sources tend to search similar resources. Our study supports searching Scopus and CTG in addition to Medline to reduce the chance of publication bias.

show abstract

Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies

Cited by 2,069 publications

References 41 publications

Accuracy of single molecular biomarkers in gingival crevicular fluid for the diagnosis of periodontitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Accuracy of single molecular biomarkers in gingival crevicular fluid for the diagnosis of periodontitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Diagnostic accuracy of MRA and MRI for the bursal-sided partial-thickness rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis

Inadequate diversity of information resources searched in US-affiliated systematic reviews and meta-analyses: 2005–2016

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About