Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-x2fkq Total loading time: 0.219 Render date: 2022-12-01T17:50:12.597Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Locating systematic reviews of test accuracy studies: How five specialist review databases measure up

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

Sue E. Bayliss
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Clare Davenport
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine location of systematic reviews of test accuracy in five specialist review databases: York CRD's DARE and HTA databases, Medion (University of Maastricht), C-EBLM (International Federation of Clinical Chemistry), and the ARIF in-house database (University of Birmingham).

Methods: Searches were limited to the period 1996–2006. Test accuracy reviews were located using in-house diagnostic search filters and with help from database producers where databases were not confined to test accuracy reviews. References were coded according to disease area, review purpose, and test application. Ease of use, volume, overlap, and content of databases was noted.

Results: A large degree of overlap existed between databases. Medion contained the largest number (n = 672) and the largest number of unique (n = 328) test accuracy references. A combination of three databases identified only 76% of test reviews. All databases were rated as easy to search but varied with respect to timeliness and compatibility with reference management software. Most reviews evaluated test accuracy (85%) but the HTA database had a larger proportion of cost-effectiveness and screening reviews and C-EBLM more reviews addressing early test development. Most reviews were conducted in secondary care settings.

Conclusions: Specialist review databases offer an essential addition to general bibliographic databases where application of diagnostic method filters can compromise search sensitivity. Important differences exist between databases in terms of ease of use and content. Our findings raise the question whether the current balance of research setting, in particular the predominance of research on tests used in secondary care, matches the needs of decision makers.

Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. C-EBLM Database of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Laboratory Medicine. http://www.fescc.org/divisions/emd/c-eblm/search.asp?id=1.Google Scholar
2. Cochrane Library (incorporating DARE HTA CDSR and EED databases). http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/mrwhome/106568753/HOME?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0.Google Scholar
3. Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group. http://srdta.cochrane.org/en/index.html.Google Scholar
4. Cochrane Screening and Diagnostic Test Methods Group. http://www.cochrane.org/docs/sadtdoc1.htm.Google Scholar
5. Fryback, DG, Thornbury, JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:8894.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Haynes, RB, Wilczynski, NL Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of diagnosis from Medline: Analytical survey BMJ. 2004;328:1040.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Irwig, L, Macaskill, P, Glasziou, P, Fahey, M. Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:119130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Kaag, ME, Wijkel, D, de Jong, D. Primary health care replacing hospital care – the effect on quality of care. Int J Qual Health Care. 1996;8:367373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Khan, K, ter Riet, G, Glanville, J, Sowden, A, Kleijnen, J, eds. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. CRD report Number 4. 2nd ed. NHS Centre for reviews and Dissemination, University of York; March 2001. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/crd4_content.pdf. Accessed 22 February 2008.Google Scholar
10. Leeflang, MMG, Scholten, RJPM, Rutje, AWS, Reitsema, JB, Bossuyt, PMM. Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:234240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Leurquin, P, Van Casteren, V, De Maeseneer, J. Use of blood tests in general practice: A collaborative study in eight European countries. Eurosentinel Study Group. Br J Gen Pract. 1995;45:2125.Google ScholarPubMed
12. Lijmer, JG, Mol, BW, Heisterkamp, SH et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA. 1999;282:10611066.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Mitchell, R, Rinaldi, F, Craig, J. Performance of published search strategies for studies of diagnostic test accuracy (SDTAs) in MEDLINE and EMBASE. XIII Cochrane Colloquium 2005, October 22–26, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
15. Moher, D, Tetzlaff, J, Tricco, AC, Sampson, M, Altman, DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Oosterhuis, WV, Niessen, RW, Bossuyt, PM. The science of systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2000;38:577588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Ritchie, G, Glanville, T, Lefebvre, C. Do published search filters to identify diagnostic test accuracy studies perform adequately Health Info Libr J. 2007;24:188192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Sackett, DL, Haynes, RB. The architecture of diagnostic research. In: Knottnerus, A, ed. The evidence base of clinical diagnosis. London: BMJ Books; 2002:1938.Google Scholar
19. Storz, P, Kolpatzik, K, Perleth, M, Klein, S, Haussler, B. Future relevance of genetic testing: A systematic horizon scanning analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;23:495504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bayliss supplementary material

Bayliss supplementary material

Download Bayliss supplementary material(File)
File 84 KB
3
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Locating systematic reviews of test accuracy studies: How five specialist review databases measure up
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Locating systematic reviews of test accuracy studies: How five specialist review databases measure up
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Locating systematic reviews of test accuracy studies: How five specialist review databases measure up
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *