Methodological quality of diagnostic accuracy studies on non-invasive coronary CT angiography: influence of QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies included in systematic reviews) items on sensitivity and specificity

Schueler, Sabine; Walther, Stefan; Schuetz, Georg M.; Dewey, Marc

doi:10.1007/s00330-012-2763-0

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 151 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Schueler et al reported that item referring to how authors handled “Uninterpretable Results” (QUADAS item 13) had a significant influence on diagnostic accuracy values and that exclusion of uninterpretable results may overestimate the diagnostic abilities of the method being investigated[34], which has also been proven by our analysis. Salavati et al, on the other hand, did not detect a difference between studies including and excluding uninterpretable segments[35].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

The Diagnostic Performance of Coronary Artery Angiography with 64-MSCT and Post 64-MSCT: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jin

et al. 2014

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo comprehensively investigate the diagnostic performance of coronary artery angiography with 64-MDCT and post 64-MDCT.Materials and MethodsPubMed was searched for all published studies that evaluated coronary arteries with 64-MDCT and post 64-MDCT. The clinical diagnostic role was evaluated by applying the likelihood ratios (LRs) to calculate the post-test probability based on Bayes' theorem.Results91 studies that met our inclusion criteria were ultimately included in the analysis. The pooled positive and negative LRs at patient level were 8.91 (95% CI, 7.53, 10.54) and 0.02 (CI, 0.01, 0.03), respectively. For studies that did not claim that non-evaluable segments were included, the pooled positive and negative LRs were 11.16 (CI, 8.90, 14.00) and 0.01 (CI, 0.01, 0.03), respectively. For studies including uninterruptable results, the diagnostic performance decreased, with the pooled positive LR 7.40 (CI, 6.00, 9.13) and negative LR 0.02 (CI, 0.01, 0.03). The areas under the summary ROC curve were 0.98 (CI, 0.97 to 0.99) for 64-MDCT and 0.96 (CI, 0.94 to 0.98) for post 64-MDCT, respectively. For references explicitly stating that the non-assessable segments were included during analysis, a post-test probability of negative results >95% and a positive post-test probability <95% could be obtained for patients with a pre-test probability of <73% for coronary artery disease (CAD). On the other hand, when the pre-test probability of CAD was >73%, the diagnostic role was reversed, with a positive post-test probability of CAD >95% and a negative post-test probability of CAD <95%.ConclusionThe diagnostic performance of post 64-MDCT does not increase as compared with 64-MDCT. CTA, overall, is a test of exclusion for patients with a pre-test probability of CAD<73%, while for patients with a pre-test probability of CAD>73%, CTA is a test used to confirm the presence of CAD.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

The Diagnostic Performance of Coronary Artery Angiography with 64-MSCT and Post 64-MSCT: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jin

et al. 2014

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies of diagnostic accuracy compare the results of one or more tests under investigation with the results of the reference standard, which is the best available method for the detection of the target condition [1,2]. Such studies tend to be prone to bias and variation, especially concerning demographic features, disease prevalence and severity, clinical review bias, and observer and instrument variation [3][4][5][6][7][8]. Biased results have an impact on the recommendations of the test under consideration and can hamper their generalizability [9,10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Has the STARD statement improved the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in European Radiology?

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To investigate whether encouraging authors to follow the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guidelines improves the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Methods In mid-2017, European Radiology started encouraging its authors to follow the STARD guidelines. Our MEDLINE search identified 114 diagnostic accuracy studies published in European Radiology in 2015 and 2019. The quality of reporting was evaluated by two independent reviewers using the revised STARD statement. Item 11 was excluded because a meaningful decision about adherence was not possible. Student’s t test for independent samples was used to analyze differences in the mean number of reported STARD items between studies published in 2015 and in 2019. In addition, we calculated differences related to the study design, data collection, and citation rate. Results The mean total number of reported STARD items for all 114 diagnostic accuracy studies analyzed was 15.9 ± 2.6 (54.8%) of 29 items (range 9.5–22.5). The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies was significantly better in 2019 (mean ± standard deviation (SD), 16.3 ± 2.7) than in 2015 (mean ± SD, 15.1 ± 2.3; p < 0.02). No significant differences in the reported STARD items were identified in relation to study design (p = 0.13), data collection (p = 0.87), and citation rate (p = 0.09). Conclusion The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies according to the STARD statement was moderate with a slight improvement since European Radiology started to recommend its authors to follow the STARD guidelines. Key Points • The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies was moderate with a mean total number of reported STARD items of 15.9 ± 2.6. • The adherence to STARD was significantly better in 2019 than in 2015 (16.3 ± 2.7 vs. 15.1 ± 2.3; p = 0.016). • No significant differences in the reported STARD items were identified in relation to study design (p = 0.13), data collection (p = 0.87), and citation rate (p = 0.09).

show abstract

“…We usedthe Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool ( 16 ) to assesse the quality of the included studies independently by the two authors. The assessement of QUADAS-2 was based on four items: (1) how the cases were selected; (2) index test, it was the descriptions of how the studies were implented and how the results were interpretatd; (3) reference standard, it includes descriptions standards of the the references; (4) flow and timing, it includeshow the cases were included and excluded.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mediastinal Nodal Staging Performance of Combined Endobronchial and Esophageal Endosonography in Lung Cancer Cases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By searching lliteratures till January 5, 2022, we evaluated the role of the mediastinal nodal staging of endobronchial ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EBUS) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS) in lung cancer. A total of 20 studies with 2,961 patients were included in this study. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, and NLR for EBUS were 0.79, 0.97, 27.29, and 0.25, respectively. EUS showed staging performance similar to EBUS. The staging performance was significantly improved when combining EBUS + EUS.

show abstract

Methodological quality of diagnostic accuracy studies on non-invasive coronary CT angiography: influence of QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies included in systematic reviews) items on sensitivity and specificity

Cited by 6 publications

References 151 publications

The Diagnostic Performance of Coronary Artery Angiography with 64-MSCT and Post 64-MSCT: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The Diagnostic Performance of Coronary Artery Angiography with 64-MSCT and Post 64-MSCT: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Has the STARD statement improved the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in European Radiology?

Mediastinal Nodal Staging Performance of Combined Endobronchial and Esophageal Endosonography in Lung Cancer Cases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About