Meta-epidemiologic analysis indicates that MEDLINE searches are sufficient for diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews

Enst, Wynanda A. van; Scholten, R. J. P. M.; Whiting, Penny; Zwinderman, Aeilko H.; Hooft, Lotty

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.05.008

Cited by 42 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These general bibliographic databases were searched from inception to 17 August 2019. We believe this search strategy is sufficient for this study since searching Medline (part of PUBMED) leads to only minor differences in the estimates of diagnostic test accuracy [19]. Aside from the above search, the reference lists of the included studies were checked manually to identify as many relevant diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies as possible [20].…”

Section: Data Sources and Searchesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic value of lung ultrasound for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Wang

Liu³

2020

Med Ultrason

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: Neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS) is one of the most common and severe diseases in neonatal intensive care units worldwide. Increasing evidence suggests that lung ultrasound (LUS) may be a reliable diagnostic tool for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. The aim of study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of LUS for NRDS with a systematic review and meta-analysis. Material and methods: We searched for articles in EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Central from inception until 17 August 2019. The selected studies were diagnostic accuracy studies that reported the utility of LUS in the diagnosis of NRDS. Two researchers independently extracted data and assessed quality using the QUADAS-2 tool. Then, we created a bivariate mixed effects model to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of LUS in diagnosing NRDS. A summary receiver operator characteristic (SROC) curve was constructed to summarize the performance characteristics of LUS. Results: Nine studies involving 703 infants were included in the review. LUS had a pooled sensitivity of 0.99 (CI: 0.92-1.00) and a specificity of 0.95 (CI: 0.87-0.98). The areas under the curve for LUS was 0.99 (0.98-1.0). Meta-regression revealed that LUS had a significant diagnostic accuracy for NRDS. Conclusion: LUS is a promising method that is easily carried out, inexpensive, nonionizing and repeatable and can be performed at the bedside. Current evidence supports LUS as a useful imaging alternative for the diagnosis of NRDS.

show abstract

Section: Data Sources and Searchesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic value of lung ultrasound for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Wang

Liu³

2020

Med Ultrason

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, we found a high number of participants imposing limits on the search, e.g., by limiting the language or date of electronic searches. We noticed that more than half of respondents use methodological filters during the literature search indicating that respondents are willing to potentially miss some studies in order to retrieve a manageable number of search results given the project's shortened timeframe [17,18]. We also confirmed that the participants often use a narrative synthesis to describe their findings rather than a formal data metaanalysis [20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…For instance, in contrast to SRs of interventions, SRs of diagnostic accuracy identify eligible studies from electronic search strategies that often involve screening thousands of titles and abstracts. The use of methodological filters can limit the volume of citations retrieved and is strongly discouraged [17,18]. Moreover, in diagnostic accuracy SRs, the synthesis of evidence requires statistical knowledge to fit the complex statistical models needed for conducting metaanalyses [11,12,19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey

Arévalo-Rodríguez

Steingart

Tricco

et al. 2020

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Rapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to time-consuming systematic reviewsthey can help meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis to inform decision-making in healthcare. The synthesis of diagnostic evidence has important methodological challenges. Here, we performed an international survey to identify the current practice of producing RRs for diagnostic tests. Methods: We developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world. Results: All participants (N = 25) reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR; however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48 and 20%, respectively). Conclusion: Our survey indicates a greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of a recent scoping review analyzing published RRs. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted.

show abstract

“…In addition, we found a high number of participants imposing limits on the search, e.g., by limiting the language or date of electronic searches. We noticed that more than half of respondents use methodological filters during the literature search indicating that respondents are willing to potentially miss some studies in order to retrieve a manageable number of search results given the project's shortened timeframe (17,18). We also confirmed that the participants often use a narrative synthesis to describe their findings rather than a formal data meta-analysis (20).…”

Section: Automation Of Review Tasksmentioning

confidence: 53%

“…For instance, in contrast to SRs of interventions, SRs of diagnostic accuracy identify eligible studies from electronic search strategies that often involve screening thousands of titles and abstracts. The use of methodological filters can limit the volume of citations retrieved and is strongly discouraged (17,18). Moreover, in diagnostic accuracy SRs, the synthesis of evidence requires statistical knowledge to fit the complex statistical models needed for conducting meta-analyses (11,12,19).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Methods For Development Of Rapid Reviews About Diagnostic Tests: An International Survey

Arévalo-Rodríguez

Steingart

Tricco

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Rapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to time-consuming systematic reviews—they can help meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis to inform decision-making in healthcare. The synthesis of diagnostic evidence has important methodological challenges. Here, we performed an international survey to identify the current practice of producing RRs for diagnostic tests.METHODS We developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world.RESULTS All participants (N = 25) reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR; however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥ 90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48% and 20%, respectively).CONCLUSION Our survey indicates a greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of a recent scoping review analyzing published RRs. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted.

show abstract

Meta-epidemiologic analysis indicates that MEDLINE searches are sufficient for diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews

Cited by 42 publications

References 27 publications

Diagnostic value of lung ultrasound for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Diagnostic value of lung ultrasound for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey

Current Methods For Development Of Rapid Reviews About Diagnostic Tests: An International Survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About